[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Harish Chandra Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 19 January, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:1338)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1552 of 2020
------
Harish Chandra Pandey, aged about 44 years, son of Late
Chakrapani Pandey, resident of N.A.C. Colony, P.O. & P.S. Sindri,
District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, 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 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the First Information Report
in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No.236 of 2020 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the
Indian Penal Code against the petitioner on the ground that the same is
the second F.I.R. in respect of which the First Information Report of
Dhanbad P.S. Case No.123 of 2019 has been registered.
3. The brief facts of the case is that while the petitioner was posted
as Assistant-cum-Store Keeper of Dhanbad Municipal Corporation,
Dhanbad, entries were made in the Stock Register without the signature
of any person against the entries and the petitioner being the part of
larger conspiracy, did the same to facilitate payment of bills relating to
(2026:JHHC:1338)
the articles which were not supplied by way of cheating and there is
also allegations against the petitioner of committing forgery and using
forged documents as genuine and cheating and thereby inducing
Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad to pay huge amount of
money for the articles which were not supplied; by deceiving Dhanbad
Municipal Corporation. On the basis of the written report submitted by
the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad
which was renamed as Deputy Administrator, Dhanbad Municipal
Corporation, Dhanbad, Police registered Dhanbad P.S. Case No.236 of
2020 and took up the investigation of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this
Court towards the F.I.R. of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.123 of 2019, the copy
of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 and submits that the said
case has been registered against the Urban Reforms Specialist engaged
by the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad who was appointed
by the Urban Development Authority and the allegation therein is that
Manish Kumar, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons,
certified forged bills and mislead the senior officers and fraudulently
ensured payment to the contractor, by making payment of
Rs.2,65,04,668/- and submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged at the
direction of the Department for the irregularities in the supply of
computer parts and equipment at Dhanbad Municipal Corporation. It is
further submitted that for the self-same occurrence as an F.I.R. has
already been registered against Manish Kumar, there is no justification
(2026:JHHC:1338)
for lodging a separate F.I.R. against the petitioner as the F.I.R. is lodged
for the offence and not the offender. It is further submitted that the
petitioner was on leave from 13.10.2016 to 31.11.2016 when the entries
were made in the Stock Register.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Rajasthan
vs. Surendra Singh Rathore reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 358
paragraph-9 of which reads as under:-
"9. From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, the
following principles emerge regarding the permissibility of the
registration of a second FIR:
9.1 When the second FIR is counter-complaint or
presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to
which an earlier FIR already stands registered.
9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even
though they may arise from the same set of
circumstances.
9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues reveal
the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger
conspiracy.
9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to the
incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or
circumstances.
9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar
or different."
wherein the permissibility of the registration of the second F.I.R.
has been mentioned.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Naresh Sharma & Another vs. State of
Jharkhand reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 1462 wherein in the facts
of that case this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Tarak Das Mukherjee vs. State
(2026:JHHC:1338)
of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.1400 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022,
paragraph-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 Information Reports by the
same person against the same accused are permitted to be registered
against the same set of facts and allegations, the same will result in the
accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings, for the
same alleged offence. Therefore, the registration of such multiple F.I.Rs,
is nothing but abuse of the process of law.
7. It is next submitted that in that case, this Court also 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 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
(2026:JHHC:1338)
been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India.
8. It is next submitted that 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
wherein also the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled
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 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 of Criminal Procedure.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Deepak Rawani @ Deepak Kr. Rawani &
Others vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2025:JHHC:13957
wherein in the facts of that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla
& Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2021) 5
SCC 435 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the
settled principle of law that the second FIR in respect of an offence or
different offences committed in the course of the same transaction, is
not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution of
(2026:JHHC:1338)
India. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant
Cr.M.P., be allowed.
10. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer made by the petitioner in the instant Cr.M.P. and relies upon
para-9.3 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore (supra), and
submits that the petitioner is not a named accused person of Dhanbad
P.S. Case No.123 of 2019 nor the accused of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.123
of 2019 is an accused in this case being Dhanbad P.S. Case No.236 of
2020. It is next submitted that Dhanbad P.S. Case No.123 of 2019 relates
to the conspiracy between the named accused person of that case being
Manish Kumar and the contractor who was the ultimate beneficiary of
the misappropriated amount of that case involved in a criminal
conspiracy but later on it has come to light about the set of facts which
gave rise to a larger conspiracy involving the petitioner. So, this
incident is a separate incident as this is confined to the forged entries
made in the Stock Register to facilitate payment of articles which were
not supplied. It is next submitted that the contention of the petitioner
that the allegation against the petitioner is false or that he was not in
duty when the entries in the Stock Register were made; is a defence
which he can either put forth before the Investigating Officer or in case
charge-sheet is submitted against him and he is asked to stand trial,
then during the trial of the case. But certainly, the same is not a ground
to quash the entire criminal proceeding at this nascent stage, where the
(2026:JHHC:1338)
investigation of the case is going on. It is also submitted that the
investigation of the case could not proceed because of the stay order
passed in this case, of course, which has recently been vacated.
Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be
dismissed.
11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court
has no hesitation in holding that as has been held in para-9 to 9.5 of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of
Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore (supra), the registration of the
second F.I.R. is permissible when the ambit of the second F.I.R. is
different even though they may arise from the same set of
circumstances. The registration of the second F.I.R. is permissible when
it reveals a set of facts to be a part of a larger conspiracy. The second
F.I.R. is also permissible when it is brought to light hitherto unknown
facts or circumstances. The second F.I.R. is also permissible where the
incident is a separate even though offences are similar.
12. Now, coming to the facts of the case; the undisputed fact remains
that the informant of the two F.I.Rs are different and the accused
persons of the two F.I.Rs are also different. The petitioner is not an
accused person of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.123 of 2019. The F.I.R. of
Dhanbad P.S. Case No.236 of 2020 was registered only after the larger
conspiracy came to light and hitherto unknown facts regarding forgery
committed in the Stock Register was brought to light. The ambit of
(2026:JHHC:1338)
second F.I.R. is also different as the F.I.R. of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.123
of 2019 is regarding the conspiracy only between the named accused
person of that case namely Manish Kumar and the contractor who was
the ultimate beneficiary because of the cheating and misappropriation
committed by Manish Kumar.
13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that as this F.I.R. is covered by the principles where the second F.I.R. is
permissible as has been summarized in para-9 to 9.5 of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Rajasthan
vs. Surendra Singh Rathore (supra) and the fact that the investigation
of this case is at the nascent stage, this Court is of the considered view
that this is not a fit case where the First Information Report in
connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No.236 of 2020 be quashed and set
aside in exercise of the power conferred upon this Court under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
14. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 19th of January, 2026
AFR/ Animesh
Uploaded on- 21/01/2026
