Writ Maintainable after commencement of Trai

I am not a lawyer, but I can offer some general information that might help. It seems you are dealing with a complex legal situation. In many jurisdictions, challenging legal procedures during a trial may involve filing appropriate motions within the court handling the case. A Writ of Direction might be considered in certain circumstances, but the feasibility would depend on the legal system and the specific details of your case.

It is crucial to consult with a qualified legal professional who can provide advice tailored to your situation. They can guide you on the best course of action, taking into account the specific laws in your jurisdiction and the details of your case. If you haven't already, seeking the assistance of a lawyer experienced in criminal law might be beneficial.

The Supreme Court observed that a second criminal complaint can be maintainable only in exceptional circumstances, depending upon the manner in which the first complaint came to be dismissed.

Multiple Complaints By The Same Party Against The. Same Accused In Respect Of The Same Incident. Impermissible: Supreme Court.

However in regard to a complaint arising out of a complaint on further investigation if it was found that there was a larger conspiracy than the one referred to in the previous complaint then a further investigation under the court culminating in another complaint is permissible.

This means that the facts and circumstances giving rise to the two FIRs must be different, or the offence committed in the two must be different, or the person accused of committing the offence is different. Only then, the second FIR is permissible.

Whethr it would be by a writ petition or by a criminal miscelleneous petition will be deiced based on the maintainability

Sir, T. Kalaiselvan ,
What had happened is

Police destroyed the first incident hand written complaint copy from police record

police destroyed the second incident hand written complaint copy from police record

Now the women victim exposed police on twitter for 2 Years

Under public pressure , Police Without their will, register the single FIR merging both separate incidents. and they claim that both incidents cognizable information were given after two years on social media by women victim and not at police station.

Police generated NC against the first Incident .
and gave it to the victim after 2 months

Police generated NC against the second incident and gave it to the victim after the 5 years .

Both under RTI application.

Filed chargesheet against only two out of six accused named in FIR.

Police not only destroyed Hands written complaint of Both incidents which established cognizable offences, but Investigation officer also destroyed 32 video evidences of both separate incidents against 6Accused which Investigation officer took into his custody.

In such circumstances

Court got images that Victim filing false complaint against 6 Accused, and order victim to produce her police copy of her complaint.
while the victim produced two separate hand written complaint copies with police acknowledged.

The Court still wants to proceed with the merge chargesheet which is filed against only 2 accused out of 6.
Not only did the victim get confused while recording her evidence in cheif but cross was also in pattern of yes and no .. The same confusion witness of two seperate incident faced while recording their evidence.
As witness of first incident had not witness second incident so could not make any statement about offence .like wise witness of second incident when put cross had informed no idea about what offences happened on first incident .
But according to false chargesheet , these witness are have witnessed both incident .

Hence we moved to Hon'ble High Court to quash such impugned proceeding and Direction of separate FIR for each incidents.

As you hve approached the high court with  substantial evidences in your possession seeking the said relief, you may instruct your lawyer to present a very strong argument narrating the incidents that took place in the past by the police colluding with the accused and destroying the evidences. 

The victim should have clearly deposed the evidence during cross examination in the trial court. 

The victim clearly deposed each fact with the video clip of an investigation officer making a self confession of destroying all video evidence of two separate incidents.

Each flase claim made by an investigation officer in police chargesheet is challenged under 340 and 195 crpc.
still the jmfc court is hurry in proceeding with the merged case against the two.
despite evidence on record and application under 319 crpc made by state PP for arraying the remaining 4 accused in the present matter.

You can obtain a stay order from high court to stall all the procedings by the trial court till the disposal of the pending petition before high court citing the unnecessary urgency shown by the concerned judicial madgistrate and the PP in collusion with the IO concerned.