Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Kacchap & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 3 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 483 of 2022
---------
Rajesh Kacchap & Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Home, Jail &
Disaster Management & Ors. ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Azim H. Laskar, Advocate
Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
For State of Jharkhand : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II
For State of West Bengal : Mr. A. K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Tushar, Advocate
For Union of India : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sahu, Sr. PC
Mr. Akashdeep, Advocate
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
---------
Order No. 6/Dated: 3rd February 2023
On account of a change in subject-jurisdiction, this
matter has come up today for hearing before me, as a co-ordinate
Bench has already fixed this matter to be posted on 3 rd February
2023.
2. Rejoinder affidavit dated 3 rd February 2023 by the
petitioners has been tendered in the Court.
3. Taken on record.
4. Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel
assisted by Mr. Azim H. Laskar and Mr. Arpan Mishra, the learned
counsels for the petitioners; Mr. A. K. Sinha, the learned Senior
counsel for the State of West Bengal; Mr. Sachin Kumar, the
learned AAG-II for the State of Jharkhand; Mr. Vinod Kumar Sahu,
the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India; and,
Mr. A. K. Sahani, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, the
complainant.
5. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioners has raised several grounds to impress upon the Court
that transmission of zero FIR dated 31 st July 2022 and subsequent
registration of the same at PS-Panchla within the district of
2 W.P. (Cr.) 483 of 2022
Howrah in the State of West Bengal is illegal and liable to be
quashed.
6. In support of this submission, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the
learned Senior counsel has referred to judgments including those
in "T. T. Antony v. State of Kerala" (2001) 6 SCC 181 (paragraph
nos. 15 to 27) and "Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B" (2022) 7 SCC
124 (paragraph nos. 15 to 17 and 39 to 46).
7. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioners has also raised an issue of jurisdiction on the ground
that from the materials on record, and the same is the case as per
the complaint given by the respondent no.4, the place of
occurrence is at Bokaro within the State of Jharkhand and while
so registration of a zero FIR was improper rather the State of
Jharkhand should have investigated the matter and, moreover, the
State of West Bengal is not a Central Agency which has any
statutory powers to conduct investigation in respect of the subject
FIR.
8. With reference to the orders passed by the High Court
of Calcutta, the learned Senior counsel submits that the prayers
made therein and the issues raised by the petitioners are entirely
different and in any manner the present writ petition is not barred
in law by virtue of the orders passed by the High Court of Calcutta.
9. Besides some other grounds, the learned Senior
counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire episode
smacks of malafide on the part of the State respondents.
10. Mr. A. K. Sinha, the learned Senior counsel appearing
for the State of West Bengal has raised a preliminary objection on
the ground that the issue of jurisdiction cannot be decided at this
stage. It is submitted that proceedings before the High Court of
Calcutta where the petitioners have made almost identical prayers
are a real hurdle for the petitioners to seek any relief from this
Court and, moreover, the Court at Howrah is not within the
territorial, administrative and supervisory control of the High
Court of Jharkhand.
11. The learned Senior counsel for the State of West Bengal
3 W.P. (Cr.) 483 of 2022
has finally submitted that the so-called illegality sought to be
projected by the petitioners cannot be seen at this stage and, in
particular, in the present writ petition.
12. Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned AAG-II for the State of
Jharkhand has submitted that the State of Jharkhand is also
opposing the prayers made in the present writ petition.
13. Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned AAG-II and Mr. A. K.
Sahani, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 are granted
two weeks' time for complying with this Court's order dated 1 st
December 2022 failing which the matter shall be heard on the
basis of the materials already on record.
14. It is expected that the affidavit filed by the State of
Jharkhand shall have all necessary details and particulars
regarding registration of zero FIR and transmission thereof to an
authority at Howrah within the State of West Bengal.
15. With the agreement of Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned
Senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A. K. Sinha, the learned
Senior counsel for the State of West Bengal, Mr. Sachin Kumar,
the learned AAG-II for the State of Jharkhand, Mr. Vinod Kumar
Sahu, the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India and
Mr. A. K. Sahani, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4,
this matter shall be listed on 24th February 2023 as this date suits
all the learned counsels appearing for the parties, to be taken up
as the first matter under the category part heard.
16. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and
contentions raised on behalf of the parties, the interim order dated
14th October 2022 shall continue till final disposal of this petition.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
Amit/
