Ajit Singh Gambhir vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3000 Jhar

                                          1                       Cr.M.P. No.1346 of 2020




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Cr.M.P. No. 1346 of 2020


                 1. Ajit Singh Gambhir, aged about 48 years, S/o Sri Darshan Singh
                   Gambhir, resident of 139, Refugee Colony, P.O. & P.S. -Agrico,
                   Jamshedpur, District -East Singhbhum, State -Jharkhand.
                 2. Gurudev Singh Raja, aged about 54 years, S/o Pyara Singh,
                   resident of H. No. 20/A, Guru Nanak Nagar, Sakchi, Bistupur,
                   Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. -Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District -East
                   Singhbhum, State -Jharkhand.
                 3. Gurdeep Singh @ Pappu Sardar @ Gurdip Singh, aged about 54
                   years, S/o -Gurudayal Singh, resident of PS -1, Behind Shiv
                   Mandir, New Lay Out, Sitaramdera, P.O. & P.S. -Agrico,
                   Jamshedpur, District -East Singhbhum, State -Jharkhand.
                                                  ....              Petitioners
                                        Versus

                 The State of Jharkhand           ....                Opp. Party

                                        PRESENT

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                      .....

      For the Petitioners       : Ms. Surabhi, Advocate
      For the State             : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Addl. P.P.
                                       .....

By the Court:-

          1.       Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer

to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of and in

connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 153 of 2017 (corresponding

to G.R. Case No. 2341 of 2017) including the order dated

23.08.2019, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Jamshedpur in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 153 of 2017

(corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2341 of 2017) whereby and where

under the learned court below found prima facie case for the

offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/341/342/353 of

the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and accordingly

took cognizance of the said offences and also directed to issue

summons to the petitioners and the co-accused persons, now

pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Jamshedpur.

3. The brief facts of the case is that Sakchi P.S. Case No. 153 of 2017

has been registered on the basis of the written report submitted by

the Police Inspector of Sakchi Police Station alleging therein that

when the informant along with the police team went to the place

of occurrence where the informant of Sakchi P.S. Case No. 153 of

2017 namely Sri Ranjan Kumar Pandey along with his team were

present and the process of removing the encroachment was going

on, at about 1:00 P.M., some persons forming an unlawful

assembly shouted slogans against the anti-encroachment team

and police administration and instigated others to attack the

police party and the anti-encroachment team and the accused

persons making an unlawful assembly, armed with lathi and danda

sat on Dharna and obstructed traffic causing inconvenience to the

general public and it is further alleged that the accused persons

said that till the petitioner no.2 will not come, they will not listen

to anyone as it is the order of the petitioner no.2. The petitioner

no.2 came there and became aggressive and argued with the

police party and told that the anti-encroachment team has done

illegal act. Thereafter the road jam was removed and traffic was

restored. After investigation of the said case, charge sheet has

been submitted in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 153 of

2017 and prior to the above Sakchi P.S. Case No. 152 of 2017 was

registered for the selfsame occurrence and in Sakchi P.S. No. 152

of 2017 also charge sheet has been submitted involving the

offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/341/342 of the

Indian Penal Code.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

lodging of the second F.I.R. in respect of the same offence

amounts to abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice.

5. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla and others v. State of U.P. and

anothers, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435 as also the Judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Upkar Singh v.

Ved Prakash and others, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292, para -17

of which reads as under:-

"17. It is clear from the words emphasised hereinabove in the above quotation, this Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] has not excluded the registration of a complaint in the nature of a counter-case from the purview of the Code. In our opinion, this Court in that case only held that any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same accused will amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code. This prohibition noticed by this Court, in our opinion, does not apply to counter-complaint by the accused in the first complaint or on his behalf alleging a different version of the said incident."

And the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the

case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, reported in (2001) 6 SCC

181, para -25 of which reads as under:-

"25. Where the police transgresses its statutory power of investigation the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and this Court in an appropriate case can interdict the investigation to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

second F.I.R. for the selfsame occurrence is not permissible in law.

Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding arising

out of and in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 153 of 2017

(corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2341 of 2017) including the order

dated 23.08.2019, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Jamshedpur in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 153 of 2017

(corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2341 of 2017) whereby and where

under the learned court below found prima facie case for the

offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/341/342/353 of

the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and accordingly

took cognizance of the said offences and also directed to issue

summons to the petitioners and the co-accused persons, now

pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Jamshedpur be quashed and set aside.

6. The Learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand submits that the cases

are different as Sakchi P.S. Case No. 153 of 2017 relates to

blockage of road whereas the Sakchi P.S. Case No. 152 of 2017

relates to attack upon the officers involved in anti-encroachment

drive. Hence, the two F.I.Rs are for two different incidents and

crimes. Hence, it is submitted that the second F.I.R. is permissible.

In support of her contention, the learned Spl. P.P. relies upon the

Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of

Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254, para

-20 & 21 of which reads as under :-

"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."

Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition

being without any merit be dismissed.

7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going

through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here

that from bare perusal of the two F.I.Rs. i.e. F.I.R. of Sakchi P.S.

Case No. 152 of 2017 and Sakchi P.S. Case No. 153 of 2017, it is

crystal clear that the place of occurrence is same, most of the

accused persons are same and the offences of formation of an

unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and in

prosecution of common object of the assembly having committed

the crime of wrongful confinement and wrongful restrain are also

the same. So in view of the principle of law settled in the case of

Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (supra), in such case the taste of

sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the F.I.Rs

relates 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 affirmative, the second F.I.R.

is liable to be quashed. After going through the contents of the

both the F.I.Rs as already discussed above, this Court has no

hesitation in holding that the incident of the two F.I.Rs are two or

more parts of the same transaction. Hence, in the considered

opinion of this Court, the F.I.R. vide Sakchi P.S. Case No. 153 of

2017 is liable to be quashed.

8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of and in

connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 153 of 2017 (corresponding

to G.R. Case No. 2341 of 2017) including the order dated

23.08.2019, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Jamshedpur in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 153 of 2017

(corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2341 of 2017) whereby and where

under the learned court below found prima facie case for the

offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/341/342/353 of

the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and accordingly

took cognizance of the said offences and also directed to issue

summons to the petitioners and the co-accused persons, now

pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Jamshedpur, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.

9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 19th August, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-