Jharkhand High Court
Deepak Mohanani vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 September, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 657 of 2023
Deepak Mohanani, aged about 42 years, son of
Ladharam Mohanani, resident of Holding No.4,
Gandhi Marg, behind Grish Apartment, Devnagar
Baradwari, P.O. Agrico, P.S. Sitaramdera, District-
East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum at
Jamshedpur, having its office at Bistupur, P.O. and
P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District East
Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
..... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate.
: Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I
------
06/ 19.09.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State.
2. Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the entire
criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated
28.11.2022, arising out of Potka P.S. Case No. 24 of 2021
corresponding to G.R. No. 1903 of 2022, pending in the court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.
3. The FIR was lodged against the petitioner for the offences
under Sections 406/409/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. The
First Information Report has been lodged on 08.06.2021 at 09.00 P.M in
the evening. The name of the informant has been disclosed in the First
Information Report as Dilip Kumar Mahto, who is Block Development
Officer- cum-Block Supply Officer, Potka, District East Singhbhum.
The petitioner is named in the First Information Report as Deepak
Mohanani. The short story narrated in the information lodged as First
Information Report is that on 16.09.2020, near Kalikapur, one 407
truck, bearing Registration No. WB-33-3621, was found turned over in
an accident, and it was found that on the basis of illegal transportation
and forged challans, Government food products were being transported,
for which, against the petitioner, door step delivery, Transporting Agent,
recommendation was made to lodge First Information Report by the
Block Supply Officer, Potka. It has been stated in the information that
on the basis of one letter dated 26.12.2020 of the Deputy
Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, wherein on the reference
of a joint inspection report, dated 16.09.2020, it has been revealed that
one truck 407, bearing Registration No. WB-33-3621, which was
illegally carrying Government food products, was being mis-utilized,
and for this it was authorized to lodge First Information Report against
the petitioner. Therefore, a request for lodging of First Information
Report was made by the informant against the petitioner for mis-
utilization of the government food products.
4. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that for the same incident, another FIR against the
owner and driver of the truck for the offences under Sections 379, 414
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act registered as Potka P.S. Case No. 51 of 2020 dated
16.09.2020. He submits that the first FIR was lodged against the owner
and driver of the vehicle and the petitioner is not named in the said FIR
and no cognizance has been taken against him. He further submits that
thereafter for the same occurrence, Potka P.S. Case No. 24 of 2021 has
been registered alleging that the challan received from the truck, which
is the subject matter of the first FIR, was in the name of the petitoner, in
view of that the Section FIR has been registered. He submits that once
the FIR was already there only on the ground of receiving the challan,
there is no need of registration of the FIR, that can also be investigated
in the first FIR itself. He further submits that the registration of the
second FIR is against the mandate of law and also against the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah
Versus the Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in (2013)
6 SCC 348.
5. Relying on the above judgment, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submits that the second FIR is an abuse of the process
of law, as for the same transaction, the second FIR has been registered.
6. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-
State submits that the transaction is same, however, challan was
recovered and the same was found to be forged, that's why, the second
FIR has been registered, in view of that there is no illegality in the
registration of the second FIR.
7. In reply, Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submits that the said challan is not included in the
seizure list of the first FIR and unnecessarily the second FIR has been
registered against the petitioner.
8. In view of the above, only requirement is to find out as to
whether both the cases are registered for the same transaction or not.
Looking into Annexure-5, which is Potka P.S. Case No. 51 of 2020 and
the earlier one, the court finds that the allegations are made of carrying
wheat in the jute bags and the truck in question was met with an
accident i.e. dated 16.09.2020. Looking into the contents of the FIR
being Potka P.S. Case No. 24 of 2021, the court finds that for the
occurrence of same transaction, the present FIR has been registered and
truck number as well as the nature of the truck is similar. Thus, it is
crystal clear that for the same transaction, the second FIR has been
registered.
9. It was pointed out that in the seizure list, there is no
mention of any challan, on the basis of which, the second FIR has been
registered. The seizure list of the earlier FIR is at page-63 of the writ
petition and looking into that, the court finds that there is no mention
about the said challan, which is the subject matter of the second FIR.
Thus, it is crystal clear that for the same transaction, the second FIR has
been registered, in view of that the case of the petitioner is fully
covered in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (Supra).
10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the
order taking cognizance dated 28.11.2022, arising out of Potka P.S.
Case No. 24 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No. 1903 of 2022, pending
in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, are
hereby, quashed.
11. This petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
[A.F.R.]
