Jharkhand High Court
Rameshwar Thakur @ Varun Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 310 of 2018
Rameshwar Thakur @ Varun Thakur ...... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Jyoti Kumar Jha ...... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate
Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, A.P.P.
......
09/Dated: 27/07/2022
Heard Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of
entire criminal proceeding including F.I.R. bearing Jamua P.S. Case No. 143 of
2009 as well as order taking cognizance dated 03.10.2009 passed in
connection with Jamua P.S. Case No. 143 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No.
1621 of 2009, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.
3. The F.I.R. has been lodged against seven accused persons
including petitioner alleging therein that while the informant was discharging
her duty in the office on 28.07.2009 then about 2.P.M. some accused persons
including the petitioner entered into her office and misbehaved with her and
torn the government document and broken the window of the office. It is
further alleged that one Ashok Paswan forcefully took away Panchayat Sewak
namely, Karnanand Singh and brutally assaulted him. It is further alleged that
three women were also accompanying with Ashok Paswan out of whom one
Meena Devi pushed her.
4. Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that police after registration of F.I.R. investigated the case and
submitted chargesheet against Shankar @ Shiv Kumar Yadav keeping the
investigation pending against the petitioner and others in connection with
Jamua P.S. Case No. 143 of 2009. He further submits that the learned court
below took cognizance vide order dated 03.10.2009 in which petitioner has
been summoned. He further submits that for the same occurrence another
F.I.R. was lodged which was numbered as Jamua P.S. Case No. 138 of 2009
dated 28.07.2009 in which petitioner has also been summoned to face trial and
the case is pending. He further submits that in the present case as well as
Jamua P.S. Case No. 138 of 2009 date, time and occurrence are disclosed
which is same. He further submits that by Letter No. 142 dated 28.07.2009,
both the F.I.Rs. have been forwarded by the Block Development Officer, Jamua
Block. He further submits that in the light of section 220 of the Cr.P.C. if in one
series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more
offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with,
and tried at one trial for, every such offence. He submits that in both cases
petitioner has been summoned.
5. Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State submits that
there are two occurrence that is why two separate F.I.Rs. have been lodged. He
submits that there is no illegality in the summoning order.
6. The court has perused the contents of Jamua P.S. Case No 143 of
2009 as well as Jamua P.S. Case No 138 of 2009 and finds that Jamua P.S.
Case No 138 of 2009 has been lodged on 28.07.2009 and Jamua P.S. Case No
143 of 2009 has been lodged on 31.07.2009. Contents of both the F.I.Rs. are
same. Further it transpires that by the same Letter No. 142 dated 28.07.2009,
both the F.I.Rs. have been forwarded by the Block Development Officer, Jamua
Block. In both cases petitioner has been made accused. F.I.R. being Jamua P.S.
Case No. 138 of 2009 is earlier one and subsequently, Jamua P.S. Case No. 143
of 2009 has been lodged which is subject matter of this petition. It is well
settled that for one offence, two cases cannot be allowed to be instituted and
the accused persons are not required to face two trial. For the same set of
occurrence two proceedings cannot be allowed in the light of judgment in the
case of " T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala" reported in the case of (2001) 6
SCC 181. To allow second F.I.R. to be continued amounts to be abuse of
process of law. The second F.I.R. for the same offence or occurrence giving rise
to one or more cognizable offences is not permissible. This aspect has been
again considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Anju
Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2013)
6 SCC 384 (Paras 20, 25, 43, 44, and 45).
7. Looking into the case in hand, it transpires that in both F.I.Rs,
there is common purpose and contents of both the cases are similar. Both the
F.I.Rs. are subject matter for committing offence in the course of same
transaction. Subsequent F.I.R. lodged for the same occurrence cannot be
sustained. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including F.I.R. bearing
Jamua P.S. Case No. 143 of 2009 as well as order taking cognizance dated
03.10.2009 passed in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No. 143 of 2009,
corresponding to G.R. No. 1621 of 2009, pending in the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, are hereby quashed.
8. Cr.M.P. No. 310 of 2018 stands allowed and disposed of. Pending
interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
