Jharkhand High Court
Manav Raj Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 23 September, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:29425 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2746 of 2025
------
Manav Raj Sharma, aged about 38 years, S/o Late Dilip Sharma, R/o
C.T.S. Road, Marwari Patti, Nath Nagar, P.O.-Nathnagar S.O., P.S.
Dist.-Bhagalpur, Habibpur, Bihar ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. 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 the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal prosecution, including
the F.I.R. of Muffasil P.S. Case No.342 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case
No.976 of 2025, registered under Section 419, 420 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Hazaribagh,of which
case the petitioner is the sole accused and against whom charge-sheet has been
submitted but investigation is going on against the other accused persons.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner cheated and
misappropriated dishonestly induced the victims Vivek Kumar Singh, Rohit
Kumar and Rahul Kumar to pay money to him, by promising to arrange jobs
for them with the Border Security Force (BSF) as SSC (GD). On the basis of the
written report submitted by one of the victims namely Rohit Kumar, police
registered Balidih P.S. Case No.229 of 2020 on 07.11.2020. As the victim went to
(2025:JHHC:29425 )
the informant of this case being Muffasil P.S. Case No.342 of 2020 and enquired
whether the appointment letter purportedly issued by the petitioner to the
victim was genuine one; it came to the notice of the informant that some person
is playing mischief by issuing fake appointment letters in the name of Border
Security Force and on the basis of the written report submitted by the Second in
Command Officer-Magistrate on behalf of the Director General of BSF, the
present case has been registered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this
Court in the case of Abhay Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. passed
in Cr.M.P. No.2509 of 2023 vide order dated 13.05.2024, submits that this Court
in that case relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Parteek Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2024 INSC
324, wherein in the facts of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
quashed and set aside the second FIR, on the same set of allegations made by
the complainant, two weeks after lodging the first FIR. It is submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner is that in this case also the present F.I.R of
Muffasil P.S Case No. 342 of 2020 which was registered on 29.11.2020, being in
respect of self-same occurrence and for the same set of allegations for which
prior to that Balidih P.S. Case No.229 of 2020 on 07.11.2020 has been instituted,
hence this FIR being the second FIR is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel
for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of
Chitranjan Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in Cr.M.P. No.1518 of
2021 vide order dated 17.01.2024 and submits that therein this Court relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian in the case of T.T.
(2025:JHHC:29425 )
Antony Vs. State of Kerla & Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, paragraph no.25
of which reads as under:-
"25. Where the police transgresses its statutory power
of investigation the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and this Court in an
appropriate case can interdict the investigation to prevent
abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice."
As also the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tarak Dash
Mukharjee & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 2121 paragraph no.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 observed that 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.
It is then submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & Ors. reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292 in
paragraph no.17 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
counter-case from the purview of the Code. In our opinion,
(2025:JHHC:29425 )
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 observed that 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, hence, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioner, as
prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.
5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer
of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that this F.I.R. has
been registered on the basis of the written report submitted by the Second in
Command of the BSF on behalf of the Director General of BSF. Hence, it is
submitted that there is no justification for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding, hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be
dismissed.
6. 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 settled principle of law that registration of the second FIR in
respect of the same set of facts and allegations is not permissible in law. Now,
coming to the facts of the case, as already indicated above Balidih P.S. Case
No.229 of 2020 has been registered on the allegation that the petitioner cheated
(2025:JHHC:29425 )
and induced the three victims of this case to part with money and petitioner
also cheated by impersonation.
7. Now, coming to the facts of this case, the allegation against the petitioner
is the same of cheating the same three victims with the promise to provide
them job in BSF. After going through the materials available in the records, this
Court has no hesitation in holding that for the same set of facts and allegations,
this FIR has been registered; for which earlier Balidih P.S. Case No.229 of 2020
registered.
8. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the F.I.R. of Muffasil
P.S. Case No.342 of 2020 is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
accordingly the same is liable to be quashed and set aside, as the continuation
of the same will amount to abuse of process of law.
9. Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution, including the F.I.R. of
Muffasil P.S. Case No.342 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No.976 of 2025,
pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Hazaribag is quashed and set aside qua
the petitioner only.
10. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 23rd of September, 2025
AFR/ Rohit
