Jharkhand High Court
O.P.) vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 25 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2778 of 2024
------
Manoranjan Giri @ Ranjan Giri, aged about 30 years, son of late
Jago Giri, resident of village Digwar, P.O. Kuju, P.S. Mandu (Kuju
O.P.), District Ramgarh. ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, 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 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to
quash the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in
connection with S.T. Case No.34 of 2024 arising out of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case
No.171 of 2023 though in the petition because of printing error S.T. Case
number has erroneously been mentioned as 33 of 2024. Prayer has also been
made for quashing the order dated 30.03.2024 whereby and where under
charges have been framed inter alia against the petitioner for having committed
the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1-B) (a)/26/35/25 (1-AAA) of the Arms
Act, 1959 on the ground that the said case is based upon the second F.I.R. for
the self-same occurrence for which Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of 2023 has
been registered and in which after submission of charge-sheet, charges have
been framed inter alia against the petitioner for having committed the offence
punishable under Section 302, 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Section 27(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 vide order dated 30.03.2024 passed in S.T.
Case No.33 of 2024 by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC,
Ramgarh.
3. The brief facts of the case is that Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of 2023
was registered for the occurrence which took place on 13.08.2023 at 12:00 Noon
and the allegation is that the petitioner herein along with the co-accused
persons were demolishing the boundary wall constructed on the land of the
informant by using J.C.B. Machine and on being protested by the informant
and his associates, the petitioner fired upon Janki Yadav and Pawan Kumar
Yadav causing them gunshot injury.
4. Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 has been registered on the basis
of self-statement of Sub-Inspector of Police who reached the place of occurrence
after getting information of the occurrence in respect of which the F.I.R. of
Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of 2023 has been registered and police
apprehended the petitioner who is also the accused of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case
No.170 of 2023 and recovered fire arms and ammunition from him.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court
in the case of Manish Varma & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand &
Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.1735 of 2023 dated 06.05.2024 and submits that
therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Others reported in (2001)
6 SCC 181 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that a fresh
investigation based on second or successive F.I.Rs 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 F.I.R., 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 Cr.P.C. or under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in that case this
Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Prem Chand Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported
in (2020) 3 SCC 54 paragraph-11 of which reads as under:-
"11. It is, therefore, apparent that the subject-matter of both the
FIRs is the same general power of attorney dated 2-5-1985 and the
sales made by the appellant in pursuance of the same. If the
substratum of the two FIRs are common, the mere addition of
Sections 467, 468 and 471 in the subsequent FIR cannot be
considered as different ingredients to justify the latter FIR as being
based on different materials, allegations and grounds." (Emphasis
supplied)
and submits that since the substratum of the two F.I.Rs are common, the
mere addition of certain offences in the subsequent F.I.R. cannot be considered
as different ingredients to justify Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023.
7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that
case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Another reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348, paragraph-58.3 of
which reads as under:-
"58.3. Even after filing of such a report, if he comes into possession
of further information or material, there is no need to register a fresh
FIR, he is empowered to make further investigation normally with
the leave of the court and where during further investigation, he
collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to
forward the same with one or more further reports which is evident
from sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code. Under the scheme of
the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173
of the Code, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the
commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of
Section 154 of the Code. 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." (Emphasis supplied)
8. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this
Court has also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of C. Muniappan & Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in
(2010) 9 SCC 567 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has referred to
the consequent test by observing that if any part of second F.I.R. arises as a
consequence of the offence alleged in the first F.I.R. and then the offences
covered by both the F.I.Rs are the same and accordingly, the second F.I.R. will
be impermissible in law or in the other words, the offence covered in both the
F.I.Rs shall have to be treated as part of the first F.I.R.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta &
Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home & Another reported
in (2019) 11 SCC 706 paragraph-16 of which reads as under:-
"16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts
the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process
of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is
settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is
pending with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000)
2 SCC 636, para 7 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513. Umesh Kumar v. State of
A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591, para 20 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 338 : (2014)
2 SCC (L&S) 237] . Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that
proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the
stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have
materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said
that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR
has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power is
undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any
court."
and submits that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
reiterated that even when the discharge application is pending with the trial
court; High Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of process of court or miscarriage of
justice.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab vs. Davinder
Pal Singh Bhullar & Others reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770 paragraph-107 of
which reads as under:-
"107. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in
consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings
would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of
the order. In such a fact situation, the legal maxim sublato
fundamento cadit opusmeaning thereby that foundation being
removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all
scores in the present case."
and submits that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
reiterated the settled proposition of law that if initial action is not in
consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall
through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. Hence, it is
submitted that the prayer as prayed by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P. be
allowed.
11. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Cr.M.P.
12. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that it is a settled principle of law as has categorically been mentioned in
paragraph-27 of the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Others (supra)
that a second F.I.R. is not maintainable unless it is a counter case. It is also a
settled principle of law as has been held in the case of Prem Chand Singh vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (supra) that if the substratum of the two
F.I.Rs are common, the mere addition of some additional section in the
subsequent F.I.R. cannot be considered as different ingredients, to justify latter
F.I.R.
13. Now coming to the consequent test as has been laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of C. Muniappan & Others vs.
State of Tamil Nadu (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the
offence forming part of the second F.I.R. i.e. recovery of ammunition arises as a
consequence of the offence committed in the first F.I.R. i.e. the Mandu (Kuju)
P.S. Case No.170 of 2023. Thus, the offences covered by both the F.I.Rs in
connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of 2023 and Mandu (Kuju) P.S.
Case No.171 of 2023 are same. Hence, the F.I.R. of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case
No.171 of 2023 is impermissible in law and the offences covered by both the
F.I.Rs shall have to be treated as part of the Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of
2023. Therefore, the F.I.R. of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 is hit by
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, continuation of the
entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection
with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 and the proceedings in connection
with S.T. Case No.34 of 2024 will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this
is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the First
Information Report in connection with S.T. Case No.34 of 2024 arising out of
Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 of the court of Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Ramgarh, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.
14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the First
Information Report in connection with S.T. Case No.34 of 2024 arising out of
Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 of the court of Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Ramgarh, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.
15. In the result, this Cr.M.P. is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 25th of September, 2024
AFR/ Saroj
