Azad Khan @ Md. Azad Khan Aged About 28 ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
2024 Latest Caselaw 10154 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Azad Khan @ Md. Azad Khan Aged About 28 ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party on 25 October, 2024

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 Cr.M.P. No. 1892 of 2021
                               ----

Azad Khan @ Md. Azad Khan aged about 28 years, son of Riyaz Khan, resident of village-Jalwabad, P.O. -Karma, P.S. & District-Koderma ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party with Cr.M.P. No. 2160 of 2021

----

Rajendra Mehta @ Rajendra Raj aged about 31 years, son of Lakhanlal Mehta, resident of village-Nawadih, P.O. - Domchanch, P.S.-Domchanch, District-Koderma.

                                  ...  ...      Petitioner
                             Versus
The State of Jharkhand               ...    ... Opp. Party

                            -------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Advocate

--------

th Order No. 08 : Dated 25 October, 2024 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:

1. Heard Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel

for the Opp. Party.

2. In both the cases since common questions of law are

involved as such both the cases have been heard together

and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties

they are being disposed of by this common order.

Prayer:

3. Both the applications have been filed for quashing the

entire criminal proceeding in connection with Koderma P.S.

Case No. 166 of 2020 dated 24.09.2020 registered for the offences under Sections 379, 413 and 414 of the Indian Penal

Code; under Sections 26 and 42 of the Indian Forest act;

under Sections 27 and 29 of the Wild Life Protection Act and

under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, pending

in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.

Factual Matrix

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Forest Range

Officer, Chitarpur has lodged the First Information Report

alleging therein that on 24.09.2020 at about 08:00 a.m.

informant along with the other forest guards was on

patrolling in the forest and in the meantime informant and

other heard the sound of vehicle and after hearing the sound

they proceeded towards the direction from where the sound

was coming.

5. It is further alleged that at about 9:30 P.M. informant

and others reached near the Sirsirwa Stone quarry where

they found that a Pocklain Machine was being repaired by

four unknown persons who on seeing the forest guard started

fleeing away leaving the said Pocklen Machine. Thereafter

said machine was seized.

6. It is further stated that on the inspection of quarry, one

explosive switch two sacs containing 170 pieces of Power gel

901 were recovered and same has been seized and seizure list

has been prepared. It has been further revealed by the trusted sources that 7 persons including petitioner were

involved in illegal mining and transportation of the stone from

the protected forest area.

Submission of the petitioners

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

present First Information Report has been lodged on the

basis of written report dated 24.09.2020 submitted by Forest

Range Officer, Chitarpur and on the basis of same letter the

Forest Range Officer, Chitarpur has submitted an offence

report in the court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Koderma on the basis of which a complaint case bearing C-

893/2020 has been registered which is pending in the court

of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Koderma wherein

prosecution report has also been submitted.

8. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submit that

admittedly for the same set of occurrence two parallel case,

one by way of F.I.R. and second by way of complaint is not

permissible in the law.

9. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners

has produced a copy of order dated 08.07.2022 passed by

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 436 of 2021

and analogues cases taking into consideration the law laid

down in the case of "Arnab Ranjan Goswami V. Union of

India" reported in (2020) 14 SCC 12, wherein law has been laid down that for the same set of occurrence if two cases are

lodged only the earliest for the information about commission

of a cognizable offence are required to be continued.

Submission of the respondent-State

10. Per contra, Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel

for the respondent-State though opposed the prayer for

quashing the entire criminal proceeding but did not dispute

law laid in the case of Cr.M.P. No. 436 of 2021 and analogues

cases.

Analysis

11. The Court has gone through the contents of F.I.R. and

complaint annexed with the petition and found therefrom

that date of both the cases are same and looking into the

contents of F.I.R. as well as complaint, this Court finds that

contents of both the cases depicted therein are same.

Further, the offence report which is basis of initiation of

complaint, it transpires that contents of both the cases are

same.

12. Law in this regard has been settled by Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami V. Union of

India" reported in (2020) 14 SCC 12 , wherein it has been

held that if two cases are lodged only the earliest for the

information about commission of a cognizable offence are required to be continued. For ready reference, paragraph 30

of the quoted as under:-

"30. The fundamental basis on which the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 32 is the filing of multiple FIRs and complaints in various States arising from the same cause of action. The cause of action was founded on a programme which was telecast on R Bharat on 21 April 2020. FIRs and criminal complaints were lodged against the petitioner in the States of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana and Jharkhand besides the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir. The law concerning multiple criminal proceedings on the same cause of action has been analyzed in a judgment of this Court in TT Antony v State of Kerala (TT Antony). Speaking for a two judge Bench, Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri interpreted the provisions of Section 154 and cognate provisions of the CrPC including Section 173 and observed: 20.under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. 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 CrP.C."

13. The Court is required 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.

14. Looking into the complaint as well as F.I.R. it transpires

that contents of accusations are same. Indian Forest Act

provides procedure of law for arrest in the light of Section 64

of the Act and further power has been envisaged to

investigate under section 72 of the said Act. In view of these

provisions, the Forest Officer investigated the matter and

thereafter filed offence report before the Court and the Court

has registered the said report. Thus in the Indian Forest Act

procedure is fully prescribed to investigate the case and to

arrest under that Act. Coming to the F.I.R., it transpires that

for the same set of occurrence, F.I.R. has been lodged.

15. It is further well settled that if any subsequent

development in the enquiry came that will be taken care of

with the first report in view of judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of "Vinay Tyagi V. Irshad Ali @

Deepak & Others (2013) 5 SCC 762. For ready reference,

the relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted as under:

"60. Once a report under Section 173(2) of the Code has been filed, it can only be cancelled, proceeded further or case closed by the court of competent jurisdiction and that too in accordance with law. Neither the police nor a specialised investigating agency has any right to cancel the said report. Furthermore, in the present case, the High Court had passed no order or direction staying further investigation by Delhi Police or proceedings before the court of competent jurisdiction. On the contrary, the Court had noticed explicitly in its order that it was a case of supplementary or further investigation and filing of a "supplementary report". Once the Court has taken this view, there is no question of treating the first report as being withdrawn, cancelled or capable of being excluded from the records by the implication. In fact, except by a specific order of a higher court competent to make said orders, the previous as well as supplementary report shall form part of the record which the trial court is expected to consider for arriving at any appropriate conclusion, in accordance with law. It is also interesting to note that CBI itself understood the order of the Court and conducted only "further investigation" as is evident from the status report filed by CBI before the High Court on 28-11-2007."

16. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the Court

finds that contents of both the case are similar. For the same

set of occurrence two proceedings cannot be allowed in the

light of judgment in the case of "T.T. Antony Vs. State of

Kerala" reported in the case of (2001) 6 SCC 181. To allow

second F.I.R. to be continued amounts to be abuse of process

of law. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the

judgment is quoted as under:

"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 CrPC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. 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 CrPC."

17. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding in connection

with Koderma P.S. Case No. 166 of 2020 dated 24.09.2020,

pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Koderma, are hereby quashed.

18. Both these petitions stand allowed and disposed of.

Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

19. Interim orders are vacated.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

Alankar/-

A.F.R.