Samrat Samanta & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 7050 Cal

                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

                       CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICATION

       Before:
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA


                                W.P.A. 20349 OF 2023

                              Samrat Samanta & Anr.
                                        VS.
                          The State of West Bengal & Ors.


       For the Petitioners :                Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder
                                            Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee
                                            Mr. Pritam Roy
                                            Mr. Soewel Bhattacharjee
                                            Ms. Sagnika Banerjee

       For the State        :               Mr. Somnath Ganguli, Ld. AGP
                                            Ms. Priyanvada Singh


       Heard on:                      12.10.2023

       Judgment on:                   12.10.2023




       JAY SENGUPTA, J:

            This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying for quashing of the FIRs filed against the petitioners.

       However, at the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners decided

not to press the prayer for quashing at this stage and prayed only for
                                      2


clubbing of the relevant cases in terms of the ratio laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported at

(2010) 12 SCC 254.

       A chart of cases with comparison, as filed on behalf of the State, is

taken on record.     Copy of the same is handed over to learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners.

       Learned counsel appearing for the State also produces the relevant

Case Diaries for perusal.

       Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as

follows. The petitioners are praying that certain FIRs lodged on the self-

same grounds and incidents may be clubbed together. In the instant case,

Moyna Police Station Case Nos. 10/2023, 11/2023 and 12/2023 all dated

09.01.2023

were registered over the same incident. Similarly, Moyna

Police Station Case Nos. 79/2023 dated 26.03.2023 and 84/2023 dated

29.03.2023 were started in respect of the same incident. So are the cases

of Moyna Police Station Case Nos. 93/2023 and 94/2023 both dated

10.04.2023 and 96/2023 dated 11.04.2023. In this regard reliance is

placed on the ratio laid down in Babubhai (supra).

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the

Reports and the Case Diaries and submits as follows. The groups of cases

referred to above cannot be said to have been started over the same

incident. So far as the first batch of cases is concerned, namely Moyna

Police Station Case Nos. 10/2023, 11/2023 and 12/2023 all dated

09.01.2023, the place of occurrence was quite away from each other. The

second one was 1.2 k.m. away from the first place of occurrence and the

third one was 700 meters away from the first place of occurrence. The

times of occurrence were 15.00 hrs., 16.30 hrs. and 16.00 hrs.,

respectively However, there were number of common accused in the

aforesaid cases. Similar is the situation in respect of the other batches of

cases for which clubbing has been sought for. In some of the cases

charge-sheets have already been submitted.

I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the

parties and have perused the writ petition, the Reports filed by the State,

the exception filed on behalf of the petitioners and the respective Case

Diaries.

It appears that for each of the batches of the cases the date of

occurrence was the same. One incident is alleged to have been happened

on a place few hundred meters away from the other. Some other incidents

are alleged to have been happened about half an hour later than the other.

Similar is the case of the third incident. A number of accused are there

common in these cases.

These are ideally offences which can be termed to have taken place

in the same transaction.

When the alleged offences are committed in the same transaction

and different complains are made and/or FIRs are registered over the

same, those FIRs need to be clubbed together. In such event, a case

started on the basis of the first FIR would continue and the subsequent

FIRs would be treated as further statements made in course of such

investigation. None of the materials collected in all such cases would get

lost. They all become part of the first case.

So far as these batches of cases are concerned, each batch of the

cases should be clubbed into one FIR in view of the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Babubhai (supra). The relevant portion of the said

decision may be quoted as follows.

"20. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the

subject emerges to the effect that an FIR under Section

154 CrPC is a very important document. It is the first

information of a cognizable offence recorded by the

officer in charge of the police station. It sets the

machinery of criminal law in motion and marks the

commencement of the investigation which ends with

the formation of an opinion under Section 169 or 170

CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a police

report under Section 173 CrPC. Thus, it is quite

possible that more than one piece of information be

given to the police officer in charge of the police station

in respect of the same incident involving one or more

than one cognizable offences. In such a case, he need

not enter each piece of information in the diary. All

other information given orally or in writing after the

commencement of the investigation into the facts

mentioned in the first information report will be

statements falling under Section 162 CrPC.

21. In such a case the court has to examine the

facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs

and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out

whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in

respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the

incidents which are two or more parts of the same

transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the

second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case,

the contrary is proved, where the version in the second

FIR is different and they are in respect of the two

different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is

permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the

accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different

version or counterclaim, investigation on both the FIRs

has to be conducted."

In this regard a reference may also be made to the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Bhai Anilchandra Shah versus CBI & Anr.

(2013) 6 SCC 348. Relevant portions of the decision are quoted as under -

"58.1. This Court accepting the plea of CBI in Narmada Bai' that

killing of Tulsiram Prajapati is part of the same series of cognizable offence

forming part of the first FIR directed CBI to "take over" the investigation

and did not grant the relief prayed for i.e, registration of a fresh FIR.

Accordingly, filing of a fresh FIR by CBI is contrary to various decisions of

this Court.

58.2. The various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure

clearly show that an officer-in-charge of a police station has to commence

investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 of the Code on the basis of

entry of the first information report, on coming to know of the commission

of cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of

the evidence collected, the investigating officer has to form an opinion

under Section 169 or 170 of the Code and forward his report to the

Magistrate concerned under Section 173(2) of the Code.

58.3. Even after filing of such a report, if he comes into possession

of further information or material, there is no need to register a fresh FIR,

he is empowered to make further investigation normally with the leave of

the court and where during further investigation, he collects further

evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one

or more further reports which is evident from sub-section (8) of Section

173 of the Code. Under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155,

156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of the Code, only the earliest or the first

information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies

the requirements of Section 154 of the Code. Thus, there can be no second

FIR and, consequently, there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of

every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or

the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable

offences.

58.4. Further, on receipt of information about a cognizable offence

or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on

entering FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of the police

station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the

FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the

course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or

more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Code. Sub-section (8) of

Section 173 of the Code empowers the police to make further investigation,

obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further

report(s) to the a Magistrate. A case of fresh investigation based on the

second or successive FIRs not being a counter-case, filed in connection

with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been

committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which

pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is underway or final report

under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, is liable to be

interfered with by the High Court by exercise of power under Section 482

of the Code or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

58.5. The first information report is a report which gives first

information with regard to any offence. There cannot be second FIR in

respect of the same offence/event because whenever any further

information is received by the investigating agency, it is always in

furtherance of the first FIR."

Each of the present batches of FIRs satisfy the above criteria and

therefore, ought to be clubbed together.

In view of the above discussions, I direct as follows :-

(a) Moyna Police Station Case Nos. 10/2023, 11/2023 and

12/2023 all dated 09.01.2023 shall be clubbed into one case.

(b) Moyna Police Station Case Nos. 79/2023 dated 26.03.2023

and 84/2023 both dated 29.03.2023 shall be clubbed into one

case.

(c) Moyna Police Station Case Nos. 93/2023, 94/2023 both dated

10.04.2023 and 96/2023 all dated 11.04.2023 shall be

clubbed into one case.

The petitioners shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceeding

to protect their liberty in respect of the clubbed cases.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order if applied for be given

to the parties on usual undertakings.

(JAY SENGUPTA, J.)

SM