Jharkhand High Court

Mahadev Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 July, 2022

                                     1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr.M.P. No. 436 of 2021

Mahadev Yadav                                     ......     Petitioner
                           Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Anand Bihari                             ......    Opposite Parties
                                With
                         Cr.M.P. No. 2651 of 2020

1.Mahesh Rai @ Mahesh Ray
2. Anand Ray
3. Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Pandit
4. Lakshman Ray               ...... Petitioners
                         Versus
The State of Jharkhand                  ...... Opposite Party
                              With
                       Cr.M.P. No. 2647 of 2021

Rajendra Mehta @ Rajendra Raj               ......    Petitioner
                       Versus
The State of Jharkhand                      ......    Opposite Party

                               With
                         Cr.M.P. No. 454 of 2021

Pawan Kumar                                 ......    Petitioner
                           Versus
The State of Jharkhand                      ......    Opposite Party
                               With
                         Cr.M.P. No. 467 of 2021

1.Azad Khan @ Md. Azad Khan
2. Vijay Saw
3. Rajesh Yadav
4. Raju Yadav @ Rajendra Yadav           ...... Petitioners
                         Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Anand Bihari                          ...... Opposite Parties
                              With
                        Cr.M.P. No. 727 of 2021

1.Uday Mehta
2. Doman Mehta                              ......    Petitioners
                           Versus
The State of Jharkhand                      ......    Opposite Party

                    ---------

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                            ---------
For the Petitioners       : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate
                         Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
                          (In Cr.M.P. Nos. 436, 467, 727, 2647 of 2021)
                         Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                         Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate

                        (In Cr.M.P. No. 2651/2020 and Cr.M.P. No. 454/2021
For the State       : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, A.A.G-III
                      Mr. Binit Chandra, A.C. to A.A.G.-III


                      (in all cases)


14/Dated: 08/07/2022

Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for

the petitioners and Mr. Ashutosh Anand assisted by Mr. Binit Chandra, learned

counsel for the State.

2. In all these cases common questions of law are involved that is why

all the cases have been heard together with the consent of the learned counsel for

the parties.

3. In all these cases prayer has been made for quashing of entire

criminal proceeding in connection with Koderma P.s. Case No. 113 of 2020 dated

21.07.2020, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,

Koderma.

4. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsels for the

petitioners submits that the present F.I.R. has been lodged on the written report

dated 20.07.2020 issued by the Forest Range Officer, Koderma and on the basis of

same letter the Forest Range Officer, Wild Animal Range, Koderma has submitted

an offence report in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma on the

basis of which a complaint case bearing C-660/2020 has been registered which is

pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma awaiting

prosecution report.

5. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submit that admittedly

for the same set of occurrence two parallel case, one by way of F.I.R. and second

by way of complaint is not permissible in the law. According to them, source has

been stated through secret informant but what is secret information has not been

disclosed by the informant. They further submit that 22 persons have been made

accused in the F.I.R. They further submit that the petitioners are neither owner

nor driver of the seized vehicle and they have no concern with the illegal mining

of stone. They further submits that in the Indian Forest Act there is provision of

power to arrest under section 64 of the Act and enquiry in the light of section 72

of the said Act. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submit that the

present F.I.R. is bad in law as it is settled law that for the same set of occurrence

two parallel proceedings cannot be allowed.

6. Per contra Mr. Ashutosh Anand learned counsel for the State submits

that in the light of section 210 of Cr.P.C. both the cases are required to be

amalgamated. He tried to justify lodging of two cases and submits that there is no

illegality if both the proceedings are allowed to be continued. By way of referring

section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., he submits that complaint has been defined in that

section of the Cr.P.C. On these grounds, he submits that these petitions are fit to

be dismissed.

7. The Court has gone through the contents of F.I.R. and complaint

annexed with the petition. Date of both cases are same i.e. 20.07.2020. Looking

into the contents of F.I.R. as well as complaint, Court finds that contents of both

the cases depicted therein are same. The offence report which is basis of initiation

of complaint, it transpires that contents of both the cases are same.

8. In Cr.M.P. No. 2651 of 2020 counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf

of opposite parties wherein para 17 it has been stated as under:-

"17.That it is further submitted that in paragraph no. 9 of the instant

petition, it is an admitted position that there is difference in the

charges as alleged in the Complaint Case No. 660/2020 and the

Koderma P.S. Case No. 113/2020 and as such both the cases has

been instituted against the petitioners. That it is further submitted

that Section 3 (A) & (B) of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 could not

added in the complaint case due to technical and inadvertence

therefore Koderma P.S. Case No. 113/2020 was instituted against all

the accused persons."

9. Looking into the aforesaid paragraph, it is crystal clear that only for

adding Section 3 (A) & (B) of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, F.I.R. has been

lodged.

10. It is well settled law that for the same set of occurrence if two

cases are lodged only the earliest for the information about commission of a

cognizable offence are required to be continued. Reference may be made to

the judgment in the case of "Arnab Ranjan Goswami V. Union of India"

reported in (2020) 14 SCC 12 wherein para 30 the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has held as under:-

"30. The fundamental basis on which the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 32 is the filing of multiple FIRs and complaints in various States arising from the same cause of action. The cause of action was founded on a programme which was telecast on R Bharat on 21 April 2020. FIRs and criminal complaints were lodged against the petitioner in the States of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana and Jharkhand besides the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir. The law concerning multiple criminal proceedings on the same cause of action has been analyzed in a judgment of this Court in TT Antony v State of Kerala (TT Antony). Speaking for a two judge Bench, Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri interpreted the provisions of Section 154 and cognate provisions of the CrPC including Section 173 and observed:

20.under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. 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. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a 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 CrP.C."

11. The Court is required 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.

12. Looking into the complaint as well as F.I.R. it transpires that

contents of accusations are same. Indian Forest Act provides procedure of law

for arrest in the light of section 64 of the Act and further power has been

envisaged to investigate under section 72 of the said Act. In view of these

provisions, the Forest Officer investigated the matter and thereafter filed

offence report before the Court and the Court has registered the said report by

order dated 22.07.2020. Thus in the Indian Forest Act procedure is fully

prescribed to investigate the case and to arrest under that Act. Accordingly,

offence report was presented before the Court. Coming to the F.I.R., it

transpires that for the same set of occurrence, F.I.R. has been lodged. It is sell

settled that if any subsequent development in the enquiry came that will be

taken care of with the first report. In view of judgement of the Hon'ble