Jharkhand High Court
Nawlesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3740 of 2017
Nawlesh Kumar, son of Suresh Prasad Sharma, resident of Sunder
Nagar, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District-Koderma. .... ....Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Mosomat Shanti, widow of Late Bandhan Yadav, resident of village-Chandwara,
P.O. & P.S.-Chandwara, District-Koderma.
3. Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, Hazaribag,
District-Hazaribag. .... ....Opp. Parties
With
Cr.M.P.No. 2645 of 2016
Nawlesh Kumar, son of Suresh Prasad Sharma, resident of Sunder
Nagar, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District-Koderma. .... ....Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Jeevlal Yadav, son of Rupdeo Yadav, resident of Chandwara, P.O. Chandwara,
P.S. Chandwara, District-Koderma. .... ....Opp. Parties
With
Cr.M.P.No. 2682 of 2016
Nawlesh Kumar, son of Suresh Prasad Sharma, resident of Sunder
Nagar, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District-Koderma. .... ....Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Chandrika Paswan, son of Late Hiraman Paswan, resident of Chandwara,
P.O. Chandwara, P.S. Chandwara, District-Koderma .... ....Opp. Parties
With
Cr.M.P.No. 2714 of 2016
Nawlesh Kumar, son of Suresh Prasad Sharma, resident of Sunder
Nagar, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District-Koderma. .... ....Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Mosomat Tarwa, window of Late Ashok Yadav, resident of Chandwara,
P.O. Chandwara, P.S. Chandwara, District-Koderma .... ....Opp. Parties
With
Cr.M.P.No. 2742 of 2016
Nawlesh Kumar, son of Suresh Prasad Sharma, resident of Sunder
Nagar, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District-Koderma. .... ....Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Ram Prakash Rana, son of Late Tulsi Rana, resident of Chandwara,
P.O. Chandwara, P.S. Chandwara, District-Koderma. .... ....Opp. Parties
With
Cr.M.P.No. 2786 of 2016
Nawlesh Kumar, son of Suresh Prasad Sharma, resident of Sunder
Nagar, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District-Koderma. .... ....Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Banshi Yadav, son of Late Chhotu Yadav, resident of Chandwara, P.O. & P.S.
Koderma, District-Koderma. .... ....Opp. Parties
With
Cr.M.P.No. 2795 of 2016
Nawlesh Kumar, son of Suresh Prasad Sharma, resident of Sunder
Nagar, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District-Koderma. .... ....Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Suresh Yadav, son of Rameshwar Yadav, resident of Chandwara, P.O. Chandwara,
P.S. Chandwara, District-koderma. .... ....Opp. Parties
With
Cr.M.P.No. 2806 of 2016
2
Nawlesh Kumar, son of Suresh Prasad Sharma, resident of Sunder
Nagar, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District-Koderma. .... ....Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Dhaneshwari Devi, wife of Shankar Pandit, resident of Chandwara, P.O. Chandwara,
P.S. Chandwara, District-Koderma. .... ....Opp. Parties
With
Cr.M.P. No. 2844 of 2016
Nawlesh Kumar, son of Suresh Prasad Sharma, resident of Sunder
Nagar, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District-Koderma. .... ....Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Narayan Mahto, son of Bhikhan Mahto, resident of Chandwara, P.O.
Chandwara, P.S. Chandwara, District-Koderma .... ....Opp. Parties
With
Cr.M.P.No. 2871 of 2016
Nawlesh Kumar, son of Suresh Prasad Sharma, resident of Sunder
Nagar, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District-Koderma. .... ....Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Dahni Devi, wife of Bandhan Yadav, resident of Chandwara, P.O.
Chandwara, P.S. Chandwara, District-Koderma .... ....Opp. Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate.
: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.
: Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
: Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.
: Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
: Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P.
: Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
: Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.
: Mr. Gouri S. Prasad, A.P.P.
: Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.
: Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
--------
C.A.V. on 03.03.2023 : Pronounced on 13.03.2023
Heard the rival submissions of learned Counsels of parties and perused the
record.
2. All the above Cr.M.P.s are related to petitioner Nawlesh Kumar pertaining to same
cause of actions therefore, all are disposed of with the common order.
3. In Cr.M.P.No. 3740 of 2017 the petitioner Nawlesh Kumar has sought to quash
the F.I.R.(Annexure-1) in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 0194 of 2016 dated
04.09.2016 corresponding to G.R.No. 936 of 2016, pending before the Court of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
Further I.A. (Cr.) No. 5043 of 2022 was moved in this Cr.M.P. on behalf of the
petitioner seeking prayer to permit him to quash the order of taking cognizance on the charge-
sheet filed in Koderma P.S. Case No. 194 of 2016 (Annexure-5) and also the entire proceeding
of the case.
4. Cr.M.P.No. 2645 of 2016 is on behalf of the petitioner Nawlesh Kumar seeking to
quash the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) in connection Koderma P.S. Case No. 0163 of 2016 dated
09.08.2016 corresponding to G.R.No. 811 of 2016, pending before the Court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
5. Cr.M.P.No.2682 of 2016 is on behalf of petitioner Nawlesh Kumar seeking to
quash the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 0169 of 2016 dated
11.08.2016 corresponding to G.R.No. 824 of 2016.
6. Cr.M.P.No. 2714 of 2016 is on behalf of petitioner Nawlesh Kumar seeking to
quash the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 0170 of 2016 dated
11.08.2016, corresponding to G.R.No.825 of 2016 pending before the Court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
7. Cr.M.P.No. 2742 of 2016 is on behalf of petitioner Nawlesh Kumar seeking to
quash the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 0167 of 2016 dated
11.08.2016, corresponding to G.R.No. 822 of 2016, pending in the Court of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
8. Cr.M.P.No. 2786 of 2016 is on behalf of petitioner Nawlesh Kumar with the prayer
to quash the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 0171 of 2016 dated
11.08.2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 826 of 2016, pending before the Court of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
Further prayer is made by way of I.A. (Cr.) No. 5040 of 2022 seeking to quash
the cognizance order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma
in Koderma P.S. Case No. 171 of 2016 and the entire proceeding of the case.
9. Cr.M.P.No. 2795 of 2016 is on behalf of petitioner Nawlesh Kumar with the prayer
to quash the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 0172 of 2016 dated
12.08.2016, corresponding to G.R.No. 841 of 2016, pending before the Court of the learned
C.J.M., Koderma.
With further prayer by way of I.A. (Cr.) No. 5039 of 2022 to quash the cognizance
order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the C.J.M., Koderma in Koderma P.S. Case No. 172 of 2016
and the entire proceeding of the case.
10. Cr.M.P.No. 2806 of 2016 is on behalf of petitioner Nawlesh Kumar seeking to
quash the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 0173 of 2016,
corresponding to G.R.No. 842 of 2016, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Koderma.
Further prayer is made by way of I.A. (Cr.) No. 5042 of 2022 to quash the
cognizance order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Koderma
P.S. Case No. 0173 of 2016 and the entire criminal proceeding of the case.
11. Cr.M.P.No. 2844 of 2016 is on behalf of petitioner Nawlesh Kumar with the prayer
to quash the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 0166 of 2016 dated
11.08.2016 corresponding to G.R.No.821 of 2016, pending before the Court of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
Further prayer is made by way of I.A. (Cr.) No. 5041 of 2022 seeking to quash
the cognizance order dated 15.02.2022 in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 166 of 2016
and also the entire proceeding of the case pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Koderma.
12. Cr.M.P.No. 2871 of 2016 is on behalf of petitioner Nawlesh Kumar seeking to
quash the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 0168 of 2016, dated
11.08.2016, corresponding to G.R.No. 823 of 2016, pending in the Court of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
Further prayer is made by way of I.A. (Cr.) No. 2235 of 2022 seeking to quash
the cognizance order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the learned Chef Judicial Magistrate, Koderma
on the charge-sheet filed in this case and the entire proceeding of the case.
13. In Cr.M.P.No. 3740 of 2017 the F.I.R. was lodged on behalf of Mosomat Shanti
by moving application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. on the basis of which the F.I.R. was
lodged by the order of the Magistrate concerned which was registered on case crime No. 0194
of 2016. In this case the informant Mosomat Shanti has made allegations that her Raiyati
Khatiyani land situated in Mauza Chandwara, P.S. Chandwara, District-Koderma was acquired
by the Govt. for construction of Railway Line and the Award No. 82 (g) in Land Acquisition Suit
No. 01/2012-13 was passed. In this case the total amount for compensation was awarded Rs.
72,69,862/-. The accused Nawlesh then Nazir-cum-clerk in the office of Land Acquisition,
Koderma asked her to meet at his residence and he got the thumb impression of the informant
on some plain papers representing that same would be used to open the Bank Account in which
the said amount of compensation would be deposited. Two passport size photographs were also
taken by him. Having seen the passbook issued to her the informant found that the amount of
Rs. 54,52,400/- was deposited and the rest of the amount Rs. 14,54,000/- was withdrawn by
the accused Nawlesh Kumar. On making query he told that the said amount was withdrawn as
a commission on the total amount awarded to him. Therefore, the accused had committed fraud
upon the informant and defalcated the amount of Rs. 14,54,000/-.
14. In Cr.M.P.No. 2645 of 2016 the informant Jeevlal Yadav, in Cr.M.P.No. 2682 of
2016 the informant Chandrika Paswan, in Cr.M.P. No. 2714 of 2016 the informant Mosomat
Tarwa, in Cr.M.P. No. 2742 of 2016 the informant Ram Prakash Rana, in Cr.M.P.No. 2786 of
2016 the informant Banshi Yadav, in Cr.M.P.No. 2795 of 2016 the informant Suresh Yadav, in
Cr.M.P.No. 2806 of 2016 the informant Dhaneshwari Devi, in Cr.M.P.No. 2844 of 2016 the
informant Narayan Mahto and in Cr.M.P.No. 2871 of 2016 the informant Dani Devi. All these
informants had made allegation of the like nature in their different F.I.R.s making allegation of
the like nature that their land was acquired for construction of the Railway line and out of the
total compensation amount awarded in the Land Acquisition Suit, the accused Nawlesh having
played fraud had defalcated the 10% to 25% amount of the total awarded amount that the
same was the commission of him for the compensation awarded and the accused Nawlesh got
their signature or thumb impression respectively of all these informants-complainants on plain
papers which were used by opening the Bank Account to withdraw the 10% to 25% amount of
the compensation amount awarded by playing fraud upon the informants. The allegations
against Nawlesh Kumar of playing fraud upon these complainants are made in different case
crime numbers of which F.I.R. were lodged.
15. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in all these Cr. Misc. petitions has contended
that in regard to the same allegations the, F.I.R. of Vigilance Case No. 71 of 2015 was lodged
on 08.12.2015 with the Police Station, Nigrani, District Ranchi Division Sadar by the Vigilance in
which the informant was Pran Ranjan Kumar Dy.S.P. of Police. This F.I.R. was lodged against
Nawlesh Kumar then Nazir of Land Acquisition Office, Koderma and the Branch Manager, Bank
of India Branch Koderma and then Bank official of the Branch of the Bank in which the allegations
made by the informant Dy. S.P. Pran Ranjan Kumar were of the like nature and all the
complainants/informants of these F.I.R.s were the victims as well as witness. Their grievance
shown in the different F.I.R. by them were also alleged in the Vigilance Case number by the
informant Pran Ranjan Kumar Dy. S.P. This F.I.R. was lodged on 08.12.2015. The copy of the
same is Annexure No.2 in all the above Cr. Misc. Petitions. It is also further submitted that the
charge-sheet in Vigilance Case No. 71 of 2015 was filed by the I.O. which is Annexure No.4 in
all these Cr.M.P.s and from the perusal of the charge-sheet Annexure No.4, it is evident that all
the complainants of these F.I.R.s which were lodged with Koderma Police Station, are the
witnesses in the list of witness shown at the foot of the charge-sheet. These witnesses are in
the capacity of a victims. The allegations which are made in the Vigilance Case number by all
these victims have again reiterated in the separate F.I.R. lodged by them against the accused,
petitioner herein, Nawlesh Kumar. The proceeding of Vigilance case has been pending before
the Court of Special Judge. Therefore, the lodging F.I.R. separately by these complainants in
some of which after having concluded the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed by the
I.O.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner also further contended that separately lodging
F.I.R. by the aforesaid complainants by making allegations separately on the basis of which the
proceedings were also initiated before the Court of C.J.M. after having taken cognizance on the
charge-sheet are nothing but the double prosecution of the petitioner-accused which is not
permissible in the eye of law and it is also further submitted that in regard to the same incident
against the same accused more than one F.I.R. are not permissible in law and are also barred
by provision of Section 300 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, prayed to quash the proceeding of the F.I.R.
and also the criminal proceeding in which the charge-sheet was filed by the I.O. and the
cognizance was taken by the concerned Court. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel
relied upon the following case laws:
i. Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and Others (2010) 12 SCC 254
ii. Kapil Agarwal & Others vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others (2021) 5 SCC
iii. T.T.Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181
iv. Chirag M. Pathak & Others vs. Dollyben Kantilal Patel & Ors (2018) 1
SCC 330
v. Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India & Ors. (2020) 14 SCC 12
16. Per contra the learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned Counsel for the
O.P.No.2 opposed the contention made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and contended
that certainly in Vigilance Case No. 71 of 2015 all these complainants of the F.I.R. are victim
and their grievance were also raised in the Vigilance Case No. 71 of 2015 but all these aforesaid
complainants have filed the separate F.I.R. in regard to their separate grievance because the
land acquired and the amount of compensation awarded to them separately and the defalcation
made by the accused Nawlesh, who is petitioner herein being the different amount, they have
filed the case in individual capacity. It is also further submitted that the Hon'ble Court is of the
view that the allegation made in these different F.I.R.s of each of the applicant are the same
which were raised by the informant for the different victims in Vigilance Case No. 71 of 2015 at
the most all these case could be directed to be merged with the Vigilance Case in view of Section
210 of Cr.P.C.
17. In order to decide the controversy between the parties, this Court averts towards
the provisions of Section 210, 300, 482 of Cr.P.C. and Article 20 of Constitution of India
which are reproduced hereunder:
210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and
police investigation in respect of the same offence.-(1) When in a
case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as
a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course
of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in
progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry
or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry
or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting
the investigation.
2. If a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section
173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate
against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate
shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out
of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.
3. If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint
case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the
police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed
by him in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same
offence.-
(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent
jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall,
while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried
again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for
which a different charge from the one made against him might have been
made under sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have
been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.
(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards
tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for
which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former
trial under sub-section (1) of Section 220.
(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing
consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence
from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last-
mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not
known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.
(4) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any
acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently
charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts
which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was
not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.
(5) A person discharged under Section 258 shall not be tried again for
the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was
discharged or of any other Court to which the first-mentioned Court is
subordinate.
(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of Section 26 of
the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) or of Section 188 of this Code.
482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.- Nothing in this Code
shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to
make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under
this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice.
Article 20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences.- (1) No
person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in
force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor
be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted
under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence
more than once.
(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a
witnesses against himself.
Article 21. Protection of life and personal liberty.- No. person shall
be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.
18. From the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, this fact is
admitted that Vigilance Case No. 71 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 406/420/120B of the
Indian Penal Code and 13 (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was lodged by Dy. S.P. Pran
Ranjan Kumar against Nawlesh Kumar then Nazir and Branch Manager of Bank of India and
other officials and in this Vigilance Case, the Dy. S.P. Pran Ranjan had made allegation against
the accused Nawlesh Kumar who in conspiracy with the concerned Bank Manager had played
fraud upon the victims who were made witnesses in this Vigilance Case and the allegations by
all the victims are made in regard to defalcating the amount of the compensation awarded to
the land losers whose land were acquired under the Land Acquisition Proceedings for
constructing the Railway line and out of the awarded compensation the accused Nawlesh had
withdrawn the 10% as a commission of the compensation awarded by playing fraud upon all the
victims. Out of them these 10 victims separately have lodged the F.I.R. with the Police Station
Koderma.
19. It is the settled proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in regard to
the same incident against the same accused there cannot be more than one F.I.R.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in "T.T.Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors", reported
in (2001) 6 SCC 181 has held:
"18. An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154
Cr.P.C. is commonly known as first information report (FIR)
though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important
document. And as its nickname suggests it is the earliest and the
first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in
charge of a police station. It sets the criminal law in motion and
marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with
the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 Cr.P.C., as the
case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that
more informations than one are given to a police officer in charge
of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or
more than one cognizable offences. In such a case he need not
enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is
implied in Section 154 Cr.P.C. Apart from a vague information by a
phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in
the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in
charge of a police station is the first information report- FIR
postulated by Section 154 Cr.P.C. All other informations made
orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation
into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in
the first information report and entered in the station house diary
by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come
to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling
under Section 162 Cr.P.C. No such information/statement can
properly be treated as an F.I.R. and entered in the station house
diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same
cannot be in conformity with the scheme of Cr.P.C. Take a case
where an FIR mentions cognizable offence under Section 307 or
326 IPC and the investigating agency learns during the
investigation or receives fresh information that the victim died, no
fresh FIR under Section 302 IPC need be registered which will be
irregular; in such a case altercation of the provision of law in the
first FIR is the proper course to adopt. Let us consider a different
situation in which H having killed W, his wife, informs the police
that she is killed by an unknown person or knowing that W is killed
by his mother or sister, H owns up the responsibility and during
investigation the truth is detected; it does not require filing of
fresh FIR against H- the real offender- who can be arraigned in the
report under Section 173 (2) or 173 (8) Cr.P.C., as the case may
be. It is of course permissible for the investigating officer to send
up a report to the Magistrate concerned even earlier that
investigation is being directed against the person suspected to be
the accused.
20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme
of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156 , 157,162,169,170 and
173 Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to
the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements
of Section 154 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C.
20. In "Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakash", reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292 the
Hon'ble Apex Court considered the judgment in T.T. Antony and explained that the judgment in
the said case does not exclude the registration of a complaint in the nature of counterclaim from
the purview of the court. What had been laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case is that any
further complaint by the same complainant against the same accused, subsequent to the
registration of a case, is prohibited under Cr.P.C. because an investigation in this regard would
have already started and further the 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 Cr.P.C. However, this rule will not apply to a counterclaim by the accused in the first
complaint or on his behalf alleging a different version of the said incident. Thus, in case, there
are rival versions in respect of the same episode, the investigating agency would take the same
on two different F.I.R.s and investigation can be carried under both of them by the same
investigating agency and thus, filing an F.I.R. pertaining to a counterclaim in respect of the same
incident having a different version of events, is permissible.
21. In "Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab", reported in (2009) 1 SCC
441 the Hon'ble Apex Court considered a case where an F.I.R. had already been lodged on
14.06.2002 in respect of the offences committed by individuals. Subsequently, the matter was
handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which during investigation collected
huge amount of material and also recorded statement of large number of persons and CBI came
to the conclusion that a scam was involved in the selection process of Panchayat Secretaries. The
second FIR was lodged by CBI. This Court after appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion
that matter investigated by CBI dealt with a larger conspiracy. Therefore, this investigation has
been on a much wider canvass and held that second FIR was permissible and required to be
investigated.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in "Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2010) 6 SCC 1:
"197.... The criminal justice administration system in India places
human rights and dignity for human life at a much higher pedestal.
In our jurisprudence an accused is presumed to be innocent till
proved guilty, the alleged accused is entitled to fairness and true
investigation and fair trial and the prosecution is expected to play
balanced role in the trial of a crime. The investigation should be
judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure compliance
with the basic rule of law. These are the fundamental canons of our
criminal jurisprudence and they are quite in conformity with the
constitutional mandate contained in Article 20 and 21 of the
Constitution of India."
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in Kapil Agarwal & Ors. vs. Sanjay Sharma &
Ors. (2021) 5 SCC 524:
"Thus, as per Section 210 Cr.P.C., when in a case instituted
otherwise than on a police report i.e. in a complaint case, during the
course of the inquiry or trial held by the Magistrate, it appears to the
Magistrate that an investigation by the police is in progress in
relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or
trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such
inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police
officer conducting the investigation. It also provides that if a report
is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the
Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint
case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint
case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases
were instituted on a police report. It also further provides that if the
police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or
if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the
police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was
stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C."
24. Hon'ble Apex Court held in "Chirag M. Pathak & Ors. vs. Dollyben Kantilal
Patel & Ors." (2018) 1 SCC 330:
"24. In our considered opinion, it is only when on reading the FIR, a
sheer absurdity in the allegations is noticed and when no prima facie
cognizable case is made out on its mere reading due to absurdity in
the allegations or when facts disclose prima facie cognizable case
and also disclose remarkable identify between the two FIRs as if the
first FIR is filed second time with no change in allegations then the
court may, in appropriate case, consider it proper to quash the
second FIR. Such is not the case here."
27. The learned Chief Justice, Y.V. Chandrachud and A.N.Sen, J.,
speaking for the Bench in their concurring opinion held as under:
(Swapan Kumar Case, SCC pp. 598 & 576-77, para 66 & 21)
"66. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must
necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular
case. ...If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the court is
satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the court will normally not
interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally
allow the investigation into the offence to be completed for
collecting materials for proving the offence.
"21. ....the condition precedent to the commencement of
investigation under Section 157 of the Code is that the FIR must
disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed.
It is wrong to suppose that the police have an unfettered discretion
to commence investigation under Section 157 of the Code. Their
right of inquiry is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect
the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably,
have reason so to suspect unless the FIR, prima facie, discloses the
commission of such offence. If that condition is satisfied, the
investigation must go on.....The court has then no power to stop the
investigation, for to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power
of the police to investigate into cognizable offences.
25. In all the aforesaid case in hand, the Vigilance Case No. 21 of 2015 was lodged on
08.12.2015 by Dy. S.P. Pran Ranjan Kumar in which the grievance of several victims were raised
making allegation against Nawlesh Kumar then Nazir of Land Acquisition Office, Koderma and
the Branch Manager of Bank of India, Branch Koderma in which allegations are made that the
accused had made gratifications from all the land losers to whom the compensation amount
awarded was to be disbursed and 10% as a commission was withdrawn from the land losers out
of their total compensation amount awarded to them separately. The charge-sheet in the
Vigilance Case has been filed. From the perusal of the same, it is found that all the above 10
complainants of the different F.I.R.s are the victims as well as witness in the Vigilance Case. The
allegations which are made in the Vigilance Case against Nawlesh Kumar who is petitioner herein
are the same in separate F.I.R. lodged by the aforesaid complainants in different F.I.R.s with
the Police Station Koderma and out of 10 cases in 6 cases the charge-sheet has been filed on
which the cognizance was also taken by the concerned Magistrate and trial has proceeded.
26. The submission of learned Counsel for the applicant that all these F.I.R.s are also
barred by the provisions of Section 300 of Cr.P.C. is not tenable because Section 300 Cr.P.C.
bars the prosecution in which the accused has been prosecuted and convicted. Herein the
petitioner accused has been prosecuted in Vigilance Case No. 71/2015 and charge-sheet has
been filed thereon. The trial has commenced but no conviction has been made. As such the
subsequent F.I.R.s which was lodged separately by the complainant are not barred by the
provisions of Section 300 Cr.P.C. In the Vigilance Case which was instituted first in time
and the charge-sheet has been filed therein and all the aforesaid subsequent F.I.R.s
which were lodged by the complainant against the accused Nawlesh Kumar are in
regard to the same allegations against the accused Nawlesh Kumar. Therefore, all
these are barred by the provisions of Article 20 of Constitution of India which bars
the double prosecution of any accused. Article 20 (2) provides that no person shall
be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Therefore, the
double prosecution of the petitioner Nawlesh Kumar in subsequent F.I.R cases which
were lodged separately by the complainants who are victims in Vigilance Case and
are also witness is in violation of the provisions of Article 20 the fundamental right
of the petitioner.
27. Learned Counsel for the O.P.No.2 and learned A.P.P. has further contended that
all these cases could be amalgamated under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. by the concerned Magistrate.
This submission of learned Counsel for the O.P.No.2 and learned A.P.P. is not tenable as the
bare perusal of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. provides that where in regard to the same incident against
the same accused a police case has been lodged on the basis of F.I.R. and subsequently the
complaint case has also been lodged in regard to the same incident, the same could have been
amalgamated by the Magistrate concerned under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. Herein after registering
the Vigilance Case against the accused Nawlesh Kumar who is petitioner herein the separate
F.I.R.s were lodged by the complainants moving the application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.
separately on which the Magistrate concerned has passed the order to register the F.I.R. and to
investigate the matter.
28. The learned Counsel for the O.P.No.2 has also contended that in the separate
F.I.R. each of the complainant had separately narrated their own case in detail in which the
amount of compensation awarded to each complainant is different and also the land acquired is
also different. But from the perusal of each of the subsequent F.I.R.s it is found that
the allegations made therein against the accused Nawlesh Kumar are directly and
substantially the same which are made in Vigilance Case by the informant Pran
Ranjan Kumar Dy. S.P. who has raised the grievance of all the victims separately who
are made witnesses in the charge-sheet filed in the Vigilance Case. Therefore, in
order to protect the petitioner from the double prosecution it would be proper and
to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to meet the ends of justice
by directing the special Court wherein the Vigilance Case No. 71 of 2015 is pending
to merge all these aforesaid cases which were lodged separately by the informants
of the aforesaid cases lodged separately with the Koderma Police Station.
29. All the aforesaid Cr.M.P.s are hereby disposed of with these effects that the
criminal proceedings pending before the concerned court of Koderma P.S. Case No. 194/2016,
Koderma P.S. Case No. 171 of 2016, Koderma P.S. Case No. 172 of 2016, Koderma P.S. Case
No. 173 of 2016, Koderma P.S. Case No. 166 of 2016 and Koderma P.S. Case No. 168 of 2016
are transferred to the Special Court wherein Vigilance Case No. 71 of 2015 is pending and the
Special Court is directed to merge all these cases with the Vigilance Case No. 71 of 2015 pending
before it and so far as the investigation of Koderma P.S. Case No. 163 of 2016, Koderma P.S.
Case No. 169 of 2016, Koderma P.S. Case No. 170 of 2016, Koderma P.S. Case No. 177 of 2016
of which investigation is being conducted by the concerned Police Officer of Police Station
Koderma are being withdrawn and same are handed over to Investigating Agency, (A.C.B.),
Hazaribag, who has to take over investigation of these cases and to file the report under Section
173 Cr.P.C. to the Special Court, Vigilance Ranchi to be merged with Vigilance Case No. 71 of
2015.
30. Accordingly, all the aforesaid Cr. Misc. Petitions are disposed of.
31. I.A.s, if any, in the aforesaid Cr.M.P. also stood disposed of.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
P.K.S./N.A.F.R.
