Jharkhand High Court
Md. Waqar Alam vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 April, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:10846 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No.233 of 2025
------
Md. Waqar Alam, Aged about 24 years, Son of Md. Dastagir
Alam, resident of village- Vaishali, Muslim Tola, P.O. & P.S.-
Vaishali, District- Vaishali, Bihar.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankur Anand, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Darshana Poddar Mishra, AAG I
Mr. Manav Poddar, AC to AAG I
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance
of appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) for quashing/setting aside the
FIR vide Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 registered for the offence
punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The brief facts of the case is that Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024
has been registered, basing upon the written report submitted by the informant
of the case, alleging therein that the petitioner used to look after the stone
mines and crusher business of the father of the informant. On 21.10.2023 at
about 3 to 4 PM, the petitioner committed theft of Rs.1,80,000/- cash and 8 bhar
of gold. The informant could not know about the same immediately and after
coming to know about the same, the informant filed the written report by
suppressing the fact that for the self-same allegation, his father has also earlier
(2025:JHHC:10846 )
filed written report basing upon which Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.238 of 2023
has been registered, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 380,
120B of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as this is the second FIR
in respect of the self-same occurrence, hence, this FIR is hit by the provisions of
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the
case Naresh Sharma & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in W.P.
(Cr.) No.200 of 2024 wherein this Court relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tarak Das Mukherjee & Others
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others passed in Criminal Appeal No.1400 of
2022, dated 23.08.2022, para-12 of which reads as under:-
"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)
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled
principle of law that if multiple First Informant Reports by the same person
against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same
set of facts and allegations, as the same will result in the accused getting
entangled in multiple criminal proceedings, for the same alleged offence. In
that case, this court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
(2025:JHHC:10846 )
Court of India in the Case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Others
reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, para-27 of which reads as under:-
"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)
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that a 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2025:JHHC:10846 )
5. In that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakash & Others
reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292, para-17 of which reads as under:-
"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 countercase 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)
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the said
principle of law 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 of Criminal Procedure 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, it will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in fact, this is an
improvement from the earlier FIR as in the earlier FIR being Pakur (Town) P.S.
Case No.238 of 2023, it was alleged that the petitioner on 21.10.2023 at about 12
Noon committed theft of Rs.3,00,000/- and 10 bhar of jewelry. Now in this FIR
being Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 the informant has kept the date of
commission of theft the same, but has modified the time from 12 Noon as
(2025:JHHC:10846 )
mentioned in the earlier FIR, to 3-4 PM and the amount of cash and jewelry
stolen has been reduced to Rs.1,80,000/- cash and 8 bhar of gold. Hence, it is
submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Writ Petition (Cr.) be allowed.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer made in this Writ Petition (Cr.) and fairly
submits that for the self-same occurrence, the FIR being Pakur (Town) P.S. Case
No.238 of 2023 was earlier lodged by the father of the present informant and
this case being Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 has been lodged for the
self-same occurrence.
8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through
the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a
settled principle of law, as has already been referred to above in the foregoing
paragraphs of the judgment that it has time and again been reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that a second FIR for the self-same occurrence
is not maintainable, being hit by the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
9. Now coming to the facts of the case, admittedly the allegations made in
this FIR as well as the earlier FIR is same regarding the manner of occurrence,
date of occurrence and the place of occurrence; the only improvisation is the
time of occurrence which was earlier mentioned as 12 Noon and in the present
FIR, it has been mentioned as 3-4 PM and the amount of stolen property has
been reduced as though in the FIR of Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.238 of 2023, it
was alleged that the petitioner committed theft of Rs.3,00,000/- in cash and 10
bhar jewelry without mentioning what kind of jewelry was stolen and in the
(2025:JHHC:10846 )
present FIR, the amount stolen has been reduced by alleging that the petitioner
committed theft of Rs.1,80,000/- in cash and 8 bhar gold.
10. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that
the FIR of Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 is a second FIR in respect of
the same occurrence for which Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.238 of 2023 was
registered. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the FIR of Pakur
(Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and continuation of the criminal proceeding in connection with the
said FIR being Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 will amount to abuse of
process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding
including the FIR in connection with Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024
registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal
Code be quashed and set aside.
11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in
connection with Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 registered for the
offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and
set aside.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 07th of April, 2025
AFR/ Saroj
