Jharkhand High Court
Jagdish Rawani vs The State Of Jharkhand ........... Opp. ... on 8 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1 Cr.M.P. No. 3850 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3850 of 2023
Jagdish Rawani, aged about 46 years, son of Mohan Rawani,
R/o Village- Karmatand, P.O.- Damodarpur, P.S.- Baliapur,
Dist.- Dhanbad ....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ........... Opp. Party
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl.PP.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- 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 for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding as well as for quashing the F.I.R. being Sindri
P.S. Case No. 93 of 2022 registered under Section 147,
148, 149, 452, 427, 341, 323, 307, 379 of the Indian Penal
Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The brief facts of the case is that on 25.08.2022, between
2 PM to 3 PM, the petitioner along with about more than
one thousand, persons, armed with deadly weapons, like
gun, country made revolver, axe, sword, other sharp
cutting weapons and sticks vandalized the 'L' type office
of the informant and committed mischief by breaking
two laptops, fridge, air-conditioners, cooler, sofa-set and
other articles and committed theft of Rs. 55,000/- and
out of the unlawful assembly, the two members namely
Sita Ram Mahato and Santosh Choudhary fired upon the
informant Amar Kumar Singh and four to five other
persons of the informant party to kill them but they were
able to escape unhurt. There is further allegation that the
petitioner along with the co-accused persons also
attacked and assaulted the police personnel causing
grievous injuries to them. There is further allegation that
the members of the unlawful assembly including the
petitioner, came towards the residential portion situated
behind the office of the informant and vandalized the
vehicles kept there , causing the damage to the same and
caused loss of Rs. 30,00,000/- to 35,00,000/-.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
for the selfsame occurrence, police firstly lodged
Baliapur P.S. Case No. 143 of 2022 and subsequently
Sindri P.S. Case No. 92 of 2022 and for the selfsame
occurrence, the third case being Sindri P.S. Case No. 93
of 2022 has been instituted. Hence, it is submitted that
the F.I.R. of Sindri P.S. Case No. 93 of 2022 is hit by
Section 162 of Cr.P.C. In support of his case, the learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348,
para 38 and 39 of which reads as under:-
"38. Xxxxxxxxxx As a matter of fact, the aforesaid proposition of law
making registration of fresh FIR impermissible and violative of
Article 21 of the Constitution is reiterated and reaffirmed in the
following subsequent decisions of this Court : (1) Upkar Singh v.
Ved Prakash [(2004) 13 SCC 292 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 211] , (2)
Babubhai v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 12 SCC 254 : (2011) 1 SCC
(Cri) 336] , (3) Chirra Shivraj v. State of A.P. [(2010) 14 SCC 444
: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 757 : AIR 2011 SC 604] , and (4) C.
Muniappan v. State of T.N. [(2010) 9 SCC 567 : (2010) 3 SCC
(Cri) 1402] In C. Muniappan [(2010) 9 SCC 567 : (2010) 3 SCC
(Cri) 1402] this Court explained the "consequence test" i.e. if an
offence forming part of the second FIR arises as a consequence of
the offence alleged in the first FIR then offences covered by both the
FIRs are the same and, accordingly, the second FIR will be
impermissible in law. In other words, the offences covered in both
the FIRs shall have to be treated as a part of the first FIR.
39. In the case on hand, in view of the principles laid down in the
abovereferred decisions, in particular, C. Muniappan [(2010) 9
SCC 567 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1402] as well as in Chirra Shivraj
[(2010) 14 SCC 444 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 757 : AIR 2011 SC 604]
, apply with full force since according to CBI itself it is the case
where:
39.1. The larger conspiracy allegedly commenced in November 2005
and culminated into the murder of Tulsiram Prajapati in
December 2006 in a fake encounter.
39.2. The alleged fake encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati was a
consequence of earlier false encounter of Sohrabuddin and
Kausarbi since Tulsiram Prajapati was an eyewitness to the
abduction and consequent murders of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi.
39.3. Tulsiram Prajapati was allegedly kept under the control of the
accused police officers, as a part of the same conspiracy, till the
time he was allegedly killed in a fake encounter."
In this respect, learned counsel of the petitioner, also
relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and
Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254, para 21 of which
reads as under:-
"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."
5. It is then submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that if the "consequence test", i.e., if an offence forming
part of the second FIR arises as a consequence of the
offence alleged in the first FIR; is applied to the facts of
this case, then the offences covered by both the FIRs are
the same in this case also. It is then submitted that the
FIR of this case, can be termed as the second FIR as the
same has arisen out of the acts done by the petitioner,
who was the accused person of Sindri P.S. Case No. 93 of
2022, as a consequence of the offence alleged in the first
FIR being the FIR of Baliapur P.S. Case No. 143 of 2022
hence it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding
as well as the F.I.R. being Sindri P.S. Case No. 93 of
2022 be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned Addl.PP on the other hand vehemently,
opposes the prayer for the quashing the entire criminal
proceeding as well as the F.I.R. being Sindri P.S. Case
No. 93 of 2022 and relies upon the judgment of this
court in the case of the Dipu Mahato @ Deepu Mahato
@ Deepak Kr. Mahato, passed in CrMP No. 1480 of 2023
dated 31.10.2023 and submits that this Court has already
held that the FIR of the Baliapur P.S. Case No. 143 of
2022 has been lodged in connection with an occurrence
which took place on 11:45 A.M. on 25.08.2022 involving
the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341,
323, 342, 353, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code
according to which the petitioner and the co-accused
persons were members of an unlawful assembly and
being armed with deadly weapons, in prosecution of
common object of the assembly, the members of the
unlawful assembly abused the patrolling party of
Baliapur Police Station and manhandled them and also
deterred them from discharging their duties by using
criminal force and tore the uniform of the informant of
the Baliapur Police Station being the Assistant Sub-
Inspector of Police. It is further submitted that the
allegations made and the FIR of Sindri P.S. case no. 92 of
2022 has been registered for an offence, relating to an
incident, which took place on 25.08.2022, as the police
inspector-cum-Officer-in-charge of Sindri police Station,
got an information that an unlawful assembly has been
formed by the accused persons of the case, being armed
with deadly weapons, the officer-in-charge of the police
station at about 1.30 PM, stopped the members of the
unlawful assembly, where, who were out to kill the
police personnel; who were protecting Lakhi Singh.
There is also allegation that in the said FIR of Sindri P.S.
case no. 92 of 2022 that the members of the unlawful
assembly entered inside the office of the Janta Mazdoor
of Lakhi Singh and vandalised the same and on attempt
being made by police to prohibit them, the members of
the unlawful assembly resorted to brick pelting and
caused murderous assault upon the police personnel or
for that matter, they also fired upon the police party
from firearms and also vandalized the vehicles parked in
front of the house of Lakhi Singh. There is also allegation
that the members of the unlawful assembly assaulted
Assistant Sub Inspector of police -Ashok Kumar Singh
and also pushed the informant causing injury and they
also assaulted Sub Inspector of Police -Abhay Kumar
and the petitioner was also a member of the said
unlawful assembly. It is next submitted that as already
indicated that the place of occurrence, the time of
occurrence, of the present FIR vide Sindri P.S. case no. 93
of 2022, relates to an occurrence which took place in the
office of the informant namely Amar Kumar Singh,
situated at 'L' type, within Sindri police station and the
time is also different as the same took place between 2.00
PM to 3.00 PM and there is no allegation of vandalizing
the office of the informant Amar Kumar Singh of Sindri
P.S. case no. 93 of 2022; in the two other FIRs, being
Sindri P.S. case no. 92 of 2022 as well as the Baliapur P.S.
case no. 143 of 2022. It is further submitted by learned
Addl. PP that there is no allegation against the petitioner
of committing mischief in the office of the informant or
having attempted to murder the informant Amar Kumar
Singh, by firing upon him from fire arms, nor there is
allegation of trespassing the office of the informant,
Amar Kumar Singh, hence, the time of the occurrence,
place of the occurrence and the occurrence itself, are
being entirely different and the allegations are also
entirely different, hence, by no stretch of imagination, it
can be said that the occurrence involved in this case,
vide Sindri P.S. case no. 93 of 2022, is a consequence of
the offence alleged in the other two FIRs, hence it is
submitted that, this criminal miscellaneous petition is
liable to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after
going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent
to mentioned here that Baliapur P.S. Case No. 143 of
2022 has been lodged in connection with an occurrence
which took place on 11:45 A.M. on 25.08.2022, Sindri P.S.
case no. 92 of 2022 has been instituted for an occurrence
which took place at 1.30 PM on 25.08.2022 and the
occurrence of this case being Sindri P.S. case no. 93 of
2022 has occurred between 2.00 PM to 3.00 PM at the
office of the informant of the said case namely Amar
Kumar Singh. The allegation of the commission of theft
of money and attempting to murder the informant and
other person, by firing upon them, is not the allegation
made in the other two FIRs, being the FIR of Sindri P.S.
case no. 92 of 2022 and Baliapur P.S. Case No. 143 of
2022.
8. This Court is of the considered view that since the time
of occurrence, manner of occurrence, and the offences
involved in the three cases, i.e. this case being Sindri P.S.
case no. 93 of 2022, the case which has been registered as
Sindri P.S. case no. 92 of 2022 and the case which has
been registered as Baliapur P.S. Case No. 143 of 2022, has
been lodged for altogether different occurrences, by no
stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioner
vandalized, committed theft and attempted to murder
the informant of Sindri P.S. case no. 93 of 2022 as a
consequence of other two occurrences, even by putting
the facts of the case is to the consequence test, as has
been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in
the case of C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil
Nadu reported in 2010 9 SCC 567. Hence, in the
considered opinion of this court since the place of
occurrence, time of occurrence, manner of occurrence of
the three incidents are entirely different, this is not a fit
case where the F.I.R. of Sindri P.S. Case No. 93 of 2022
registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 427, 341, 323,
307, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27
of the Arms Act be quashed and set aside.
9. Accordingly this criminal miscellaneous petition being
without any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 8th January, 2024
Smita /AFR
