Jharkhand High Court
Sharmila Singh Wife Of Rajeev Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 January, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 478 of 2023
Sharmila Singh wife of Rajeev Kumar, resident of Gauri Shankar
Nagar, Doranda, PS Argora, PO Doranda, District Ranchi.
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Eman Toppo wife of Joseph Toppo, resident of Village
Gurugain, Mandanatoli, PO PS Thakurgaon, District Ranchi.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA III
----
8/ 17.01.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the State.
2. Petitioner, by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, has prayed to quash Thakurgaon Police Station Case
No.25 of 2023 dated 06.06.2023 registered against the petitioner and others
for offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The only ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the instant First Information Report is a second First Information Report on
the same issue and subject, which is covered in Thakurgaon Police Station
Case No.38 of 2022. It is his contention that from bare perusal of the First
Information Report, it will be clear that in course of investigation of Thakurgaon
Police Station Case No.38 of 2022, after recording the statement of the
Mukhia, the instant First Information Report has been lodged, alleging forgery
of signature of Mukhia and falsification of document. It is his contention that
this allegation in sum and substance is the bone of contention of the First
Information Report in Thakurgaon Police Station Case No.38 of 2022, which is
under investigation. The document, which is said to be forged and on the basis
of which lands have been transferred is subject matter of the First Information
Report in Thakurgaon Police Station Case No.38 of 2022 and during
investigation of the said case, police went to record the statement of the
Mukhia to verify the genuineness of the said document, wherein the Mukhia
gave his statement stating that his signature is forged and that being so that
cannot be a ground to institute fresh First Information Report. In support of his
contention, he refers to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala and Others reported in (2001) 6
SCC 181; Babubhai versus State of Gujarat & Others reported in (2010) 12
SCC 254; and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah versus Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348.
4. Learned counsel for the State supports institution of the First
Information Report being Thakurgaon Police Station Case No.25 of 2023 and
submits that author of the First Information Report in Thakurgaon Police
Station Case No.25 of 2023 is different from the author of the First Information
Report in Thakurgaon Police Station Case No.38 of 2022. He further submits
that Mukhia had stated that signature in the Genealogical Table prepared is
forged. He staged that Mukhia has not signed any Genealogical Table and
stated that the document produced is forged. Thus, it is a case of forgery of
document and signature of Mukhia. He submits that in view of these facts the
First Information Report in Thakurgaon Police Station Case No.25 of 2023
cannot be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the State
relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chirag M.
Pathak & Others versus Dollyben Kantilal Patel & Others reported in
(2018) 1 SCC 330, especially paragraph 22 thereof.
5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that the facts of the
case lie in very narrow compass.
6. Thakurgaon Police Station Case No.38 of 2022 was instituted on
27.09.2022 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 read with
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(i)(b)(g) of the
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In the said
First Information Report, petitioner before this Court is also arrayed as an
accused. In the said First Information Report, it has been mentioned that by
forging Genealogical Table and signature of the Mukhia and also other
documents, this petitioner purchased land in Mouza Adra, Thana No.89, Khata
No.02, Plot No.80 and 81 vide sale deed No.98 dated 07.01.2022. The
allegation in the said First Information Report is that the petitioner and others
have forged documents including the signature of the Mukhia in Genealogical
Table.
7. Police took up the investigation of the aforesaid First Information
Report. During course of investigation, CID went to record the statement of the
Mukhia, whose signature was allegedly forged along with a document to
investigate the veracity and authenticity of the said documents. Mukhia, after
going through the document and signature, in a statement to the police stated
that the said document is forged and so is his signature. Once the Mukhia
gave the aforesaid statement, on the basis of his statement, the impugned
First Information Report being Thakurgaon Police Station Case No.25 of 2023
was registered for offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471/34 of
the Indian Penal Code. Thus, from these facts, it is quite clear that the subject
matter of the impugned First Information Report, i.e., Thakurgaon Police
Station Case No.25 of 2023 is the same subject matter, which is being
investigated in Thakurgaon Police Station Case No.38 of 2022. The
questionable documents and the signature is under investigation and is
subject matter of Thakurgaon Police Station Case No.38 of 2022, wherein it
has already been alleged that the said document and signature are forged for
which investigation is underway.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of T.T. Antony versus
State of Kerala and Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, has held that there
cannot be a second First Information Report and fresh investigation, on receipt
of every subsequent report with respect to the same cognizable offence or
same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.
9. In the case of Babubhai versus State of Gujarat and Others
reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 21
thereof has held as follows: -
"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 FIR comes forward with a different version or counterclaim,
investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted."
10. After considering both the above judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has taken similar view in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah
versus Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348.
11. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the State in
the case of Chirag M. Pathak and others versus Dollyben Kantilal Patel
and Others reported in (2018) 1 SCC 330, does not match with the facts of
this case. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chirag
M. Pathak (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with five First
Information Reports lodged against five different Cooperative Societies, five
different persons against five different clusters of land. Aforesaid fact has been
clearly mentioned in paragraph 19 and 20 of the said judgment. Considering
that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not quash the subsequent First
Information Reports as the cause of action, subject matter and everything
were different.
12. In the instant case, the second First Information Report is nothing
but part of the same transaction, which is involved in the earlier First
Information Report being Thakurgaon Police Station Case No.38 of 2022. The
incident is same, i.e., forging of the signature and the genealogical table. The
said document and the signature are the same, which are subject matter of
Thakurgaon Police Station Case No.38 of 2022.
13. Considering the above facts and admitted factual position, I have
no hesitation to hold that continuation of the First Information Report and the
investigation thereof in Thakurgaon Police Station Case No.25 of 2023 is bad
in the eyes of law and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Thus, I
am inclined to allow this writ petition. First Information Report being
Thakurgaon Police Station Case No.25 of 2023, qua the petitioner herein is
hereby quashed.
14. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending Interlocutory
Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-03
