Jharkhand High Court
Mahesh Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 April, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2015 of 2013
1. Mahesh Yadav
2. Santosh Saw
3. Mantu Yadav
4. Vijay Saw
5. Sanjay Yadav
6. Surendra Singh
7. Tejo Yadav ...... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioners : Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.
08/Dated: 18/04/2023
Heard Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal
proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 19.02.2010 passed in
connection with G. Case No. 154 of 2009, pending in the Court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
3. The prosecution report has been submitted by the Forest Guard
alleging therein that on 26.06.2009 at about 12.15 in the day on secret
information in Chitarpur forest that some persons are doing illegal mining, the
informant along with his associates reached at the place of occurrence upon which
the accused persons fled away. The accused persons were identified and the
vehicle used for the aforesaid purpose were seized in presence of the witnesses.
The offence report was prepared on 31.01.2010.
4. Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, learned counsel the petitioners submits that for
the same set of occurrence two cases have been filed one by way of F.I.R. and
second by way of complaint which is not permissible in the eye of law. She
submits that the complaint case is subject matter of the present Cr.M.P. According
to her, source has been stated through secret informant but what is secret
information has not been disclosed by the informant. She 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. She submits that the
present complaint is bad in law as it is settled law that for the same set of
occurrence two parallel proceedings cannot be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that
prosecution has rightly been launched.
6. 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. 26.06.2009. 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.
7. 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 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."
8. The Court is required to examine the facts and circumstances
giving rise to both FIR and complaint and the test of sameness is to be applied
to find out whether both FIR and complaint 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.
9. 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.
10. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the Court finds that
contents of both the cases are similar. 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 (2001) 6 SCC 181. To allow the
present complaint to be continued amounts to be abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated
19.02.2010 passed in connection with G. Case No. 154 of 2009, pending in the
Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, are hereby quashed.
11. This petition stands allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands
disposed of. Interim order is vacated.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
