Jharkhand High Court
Tripurari Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 July, 2023
1 Cr.M.P. No. 322 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 322 of 2022
Tripurari Kumar ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi
3. Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation through Chief Vigilance
Officer, Dhanbad ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.
For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
For C.M.P.F. : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate
-----
17/24.07.2023 Heard Mr. Shailesh Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Satish Prasad, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned
A.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI and Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for C.M.P.F.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR being Ramgarh P.S.
Case No.250 of 2021 registered under Sections 406/409/420/467/468/
471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh.
3. Mr. Shailesh Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the allegations against the petitioner are of misappropriation of the amount
relating to Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation (C.M.P.F.). He further
submits that the said case is being investigated by the CBI in which charge-
sheet has been filed in RC-05A/2019-R. He submits that for the same
offence, present case has been filed, which is against the mandate of law.
On these grounds, he submits that the FIR may kindly be quashed.
4. Mr. Satish Prasad, learned counsel for the State submits that
supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State,
wherein, it has been disclosed that the subject matter of this FIR is relating
to other different six accounts, which are not the subject matter of CBI
investigation and the case of the petitioner is not similar in nature. He
further submits that altogether there are 19 accused and only one accused
has filed this petition.
5. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I., appearing for the CBI submits that
the CBI has investigated the case with regard to accounts involved in that
case. He further submits that in view of the supplementary counter
affidavit, filed by the State, it appears that the matter relating to those six
accounts are not investigated by the CBI. He further submits that identical
was the situation in State of Jharkhand through S.P., Central Bureau
of Investigation v. Lalu Prasad Yadav @ Lalu Prasad; [(2017) 8
SCC 1].
6. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the
parties, it appears that the case is arising out of misappropriation of fund of
the concerned person of C.M.P.F and the CBI has investigated the matter
with regard to other accounts and so far as, six accounts are concerned,
that was not the subject matter of CBI investigation and in view of that, the
present case has been registered.
7. All the accused persons are not before this Court for amalgamation of
the case, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalu Prasad
Yadav @ Lalu Prasad (supra) in paragraph nos. 8 and 37, which are quoted
hereinbelow:
"8. This Court considered the matter in Lalu Prasad Yadav v.
State [Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State, (2003) 11 SCC 786 : 2004
SCC (Cri) 1244] . It was urged on behalf of Lalu Prasad Yadav,
Dr Jagannath Mishra and others that it was a case of only a
single conspiracy and therefore there should be amalgamation
of trials as per the provisions contained in Section 223 CrPC.
This Court opined that charges were not framed at that stage.
It is for the trial court to decide the prayer for joint trial. There
were a large number of accused persons. It was also observed
that the main offence was under the PC Act and conspiracy
was an allied offence. This Court laid down thus : (SCC pp.
795 & 796, paras 11 & 14)
"11. ... Thus it has already been held, by a three-
Judge Bench [CBI v. Braj Bhushan Prasad, (2001) 9
SCC 432 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 576] of this Court, that the
main offences were under the Prevention of Corruption
Act. It has been held that the offence of conspiracy is
an allied offence to the main offence under the
Prevention of Corruption Act. The cases are before the
Special Judges because the main offences are under
the Prevention of Corruption Act. The main offence
under the Prevention of Corruption Act in each case is
in respect of the alleged transaction in that case. As
conspiracy is only an allied offence, it cannot be said
that the alleged overt acts are in the course of the
same transaction. We are bound by this decision. In
any case we see no reason to take a different view. As
it has already been held that the charge of conspiracy is
only an allied charge and that the main charges (under
the Prevention of Corruption Act) are in respect of
separate and distinct acts i.e. monies siphoned out of
different treasuries at different times, we fail to see as
to how these cases could be amalgamated.
* * *
14. Before we part it must be mentioned that it had
been complained that the appellants would be forced to
hear the same evidence 5/6 times. If the appellants or
any of them feel aggrieved by this and if they so desire,
they may apply to the Special Judges that evidence
recorded in one case and documents marked as an
exhibit in one case be used as evidence in other cases
also. This would obviate their having to hear the same
evidence in 5/6 different cases. We are sure that if such
an application is made, the same will be considered by
the Special Judge on its merit, after hearing all the
other accused."
(emphasis supplied)
This Court had noted the grievance that the accused
persons would be forced to hear the same evidence 5-6 times,
but ordered that they may apply to the Special Judges that
evidence recorded in one case and the document marked as
an exhibit in one case be used as evidence in other cases also.
xxx xxx xxx
37. It is pertinent to mention here that this Court in this
very case has negatived the contention of joint trials and
amalgamation of trials in the aforesaid decisions. When parties
are different, issue of estoppel would not arise. The
substantive offence is that of defalcation. Conspiracy was an
allied offence to the substantive offence."
8. Further, the investigation is still going on and the charge-sheet has
not been submitted. It appears that the cause of action of earlier case and
present case are different. Further, after submission of the charge-sheet, if
the petitioner make out the case of similar nature, appropriate order can be
passed in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI; [(2013) 6 SCC 348] .
9. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis, no relief can be
extended to the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
11. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
