Jharkhand High Court
Chitranjan Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 17 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Cr. M.P. No.1518 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1518 of 2021
------
Chitranjan Kumar, Aged about 50 years, S/O- Sri Birendra Kumar,
R/O- P&T Colony, Quarter No.J5/2, PO+PS- Lalpur, Dist- Ranchi
(Jharkhand) ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P.
------
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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
with a prayer to quash the First Information Report of Daily Market P.S. Case
No.34 of 2020 involving the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467,
468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and all other further proceedings in
relation to the said case which is now pending in the court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
3. The F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 has been registered on
10.12.2020 alleging that while the petitioner was posted as Sub-Post Master in
the OCC Post Office from January, 2016 to June 2018, he was involved in
committing criminal breach of trust by sanctioning loan in 74 (seventy four)
different R.D. Accounts amounting to Rs.25,53,400/- in furtherance of common
intention with Smt. Suman Agrawal, MPKBY, her representative Shri Shubham
Gupta.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court
towards Annexure-3 at page-30-51 of the brief which is the F.I.R. of Kotwali P.S.
Case No.99 of 2020 and submits that the said F.I.R. of Kotwali P.S. Case No.99
of 2020 was registered much before registration of this F.I.R. for the self-same
allegation in respect of the same set of facts and allegations. Hence, the F.I.R. of
Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 is hit by Section 162 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181,
paragraph Nos. 25 and 27 of which read 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.
27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens
under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive
power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be
struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that
subsection (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make
further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and
documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the
Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri)
479] it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to
conduct further investigation with the permission of the court.
However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant
subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in
respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable
offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before
or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would
clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a
case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case.
In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or
successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with
the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been
committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of
which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or
final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the
Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section
482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution."
(Emphasis supplied)
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court, vide
order dated 03rd of January, 2024, has allowed the self-same prayer of the co-
accused Pramod Kumar passed in Cr.M.P. No.2338 of 2023. Hence, it is
submitted that the First Information Report of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of
2020 and all other further proceedings in relation to the said case which is now
pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, be quashed
and set aside.
6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report of Daily
Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 and all other further proceedings in relation to
the said case which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ranchi and submits that since the investigation of the case is going
on so, the specific allegation against the petitioner can be known only after the
investigation of the case is over. Hence, it is submitted that at this nascent
stage, the prayer to quash and set aside the First Information Report of Daily
Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 and all other further proceedings in relation to
the said case which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ranchi ought not be allowed and this Cr.M.P., being without any
merit, be dismissed.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials available in the record, perusal of both the F.I.Rs. i.e. the
F.I.R. of Kotwali P.S. Case No.99 of 2020 and the F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S.
Case No.34 of 2020 reveal that in Kotwali P.S. Case No.99 of 2020; Suman
Agrawal is the informant who has been cited as an accused in the said Daily
Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020. In the F.I.R. of Kotwali P.S. Case No.99 of 2020,
Suman Agrawal has made the self-same allegation alleging illegal withdrawal
of money from the R.D. Account holders to the tune of Rs.29,62,400/- but in the
F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020, only a lesser sum of
Rs.25,53,400/- is alleged to have been sanctioned by the petitioner. In Kotwali
P.S. Case No.99 of 2020, the petitioner has not been cited as an accused in the
formal F.I.R. but during the course of the investigation, if his involvement is
found out then he can be arrayed as an accused in that case also. In Kotwali
P.S. Case No.99 of 2020, besides the aforesaid amount of Rs.29,62,400/-, further
illegal withdrawal to the tune of Rs.22,11,320/- has also been alleged. It is a
settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Tarak Dash Mukharjee & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
& Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2121 paragraph Nos. 9, 11 and 12 of
which read as under:-
"9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants
who submitted that both the first and second FIRs are based on the
same set of facts and the same cause of action. Relying upon
decisions of this Court in the case of Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash,
(2004) 13 SCC 292 and T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6
SCC 181 the learned counsel submitted that registration of second
FIR is a gross abuse of process of law.
11. We have perused both the FIRs. The respondent no.4 is the first
informant in both the FIRs and the same are based on the same
agreement for sale executed on 14th June 2006. The allegation made
in both the FIRs is the same. The allegation is that by practising
forgery and fraud, the appellant no.1 has sold the subject property to
appellant no.2 thereby deceiving the respondent no.4. The second
FIR, which is the subject matter of challenge, was registered nearly
four years after the first FIR was registered. The challenge to the
first FIR is pending before the High Court. These aspects have been
completely overlooked by the High Court in the impugned
judgment.
12. If multiple First Information Reports by the same person
against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of
the same set of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused
getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same
alleged offence. Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is
nothing but abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the act of the
registration of such successive FIRs on the same set of facts and
allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the
scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The
settled legal position on this behalf has been completely ignored by
the High Court." (Emphasis supplied)
that if multiple First Information Reports by the same person against the
same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same set of facts
and allegations, it will result in the accused getting entangled in multiple
criminal proceedings for the same alleged offence. Therefore, the registration
of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law.
8. Now, after going through the materials available in the record, this Court
is of the considered view that the F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020
is the second F.I.R. in respect of the same occurrence for which Kotwali P.S.
Case No.99 of 2020 has been registered much prior to the registration of the
said Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & others reported in (2004) 13 SCC
"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." (Emphasis supplied)
has reiterated the settled principle of law that the registration of the
second F.I.R. for the self-same occurrence is prohibited. Thus this Court
considering the facts of the case and discussions made above is of the
considered view that the continuation of the F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case
No.34 of 2020 and all other further proceedings in relation to the said case
which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi
will tantamount to abuse of process of law and in the interest of justice the said
F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 and all other further proceedings
in relation to the said case which is now pending in the court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi which is the second case in respect of the self-same
occurrence, be quashed and set aside.
9. Accordingly, the F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 and all
other further proceedings in relation to the said case which is now pending in
the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, is quashed and set aside
against the petitioner.
10. It is made clear that if during the investigation of the case of Kotwali P.S.
Case No.99 of 2020 any material comes to array the petitioner as an accused of
that case, then this judgment will not be a bar in the process of the same.
11. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 17th of January, 2024
AFR/ Animesh
