Neeraj Kumar Thakur vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 515 Patna

Patna High Court

Neeraj Kumar Thakur vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 22 January, 2024

Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1876 of 2017
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District-
     ======================================================
     Neeraj Kumar Thakur, Son of Late Dhirendra Thakur, resident of Prema
     Kutir, Chandra Vihar Colony, Ashiana- Digha Road (West), P.S.- Rajeev
     Nagar, District- Patna.
                                                           ... ... Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.    The State of Bihar
2.   The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3.   The Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Special), Government of
     Bihar, Patna.
4.   The District Magistrate, Patna at Patna, District- Patna.
5.   The Superintendent of Police, Patna at Patna, District- Patna.
6.   The Superintendent of Police (City) Patna at Patna, District- Patna.
7.   The Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, at Patna, District- Patna.
8.   The Officer-in-Charge, Digha Police Station, Digha, District- Patna.
9.   The Officer- in-Charge, Rajeev Nagar Police Station, Rajeev Nagar, District-
     Patna.

                                               ... ... Respondents
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :         Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :         Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG-3
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
     ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 22-01-2024


                 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC

     to AAG-3 for the State.

                 2. The petitioner in the present case is seeking quashing

     of the second and the third FIR being Digha P.S. Case No. 282 of

     2017 (G.R. No. 5676 of 2017) and Digha P.S. Case No. 283 of

     2017 (G.R. No. 5911 of 2017) respectively.
 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1876 of 2017 dt.22-01-2024
                                           2/11




                                        Brief Facts of the Case.

                    3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the first FIR

       with regard to the alleged occurrence which took place on

       05.09.2017

has been lodged by an employee of the Bihar State

Housing Board giving rise to Digha P.S. Case No. 281 of 2017

dated 05.09.2017 registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 353, 427, 332, 333,

336, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. This case was

registered on 05.09.2017 at 18:05 hours. The time of occurrence as

alleged in the FIR is 11:00 A.M. on 05.09.2017. It is alleged that

when the deputed Magistrate and Officers together with the police

force were engaged in the measurement work of the land situated

at the corner of Polshan Road and Ghurdaud Road in front of

Rajeev Nagar Police Station and they were demolishing the

boundary wall for the purpose of handing over the land to the

Videsh Bhawan and CBSE, all of a sudden, the local persons

surrounded the place, they indulged in slogan shouting and when

the Police Officers were trying to restore peace and make them to

understand, the agitationists started stone throwing which caused

injury to the Officer Incharge of the Digha Police Station. The

agitationists also tried to kill the JCB Operator who somehow

saved his life but the agitationists burned the three JCBs and one Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1876 of 2017 dt.22-01-2024

jeep. The informant came to know that the persons involved in the

alleged occurrence were the eight named accused and about 1000

unknown persons who had indulged in assault and setting the

vehicles at fire. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is not named in this first information report.

Submissions of the Petitioner

4. The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the

second and third FIR giving rise to Digha P.S. Case No. 282 of

2017 dated 05.09.2017 and Digha P.S. Case No. 283 of 2017 dated

05.09.2017 lodged under various Sections of the Indian Penal

Code and the Arms Act. Learned counsel submits that the second

FIR has been lodged by the Circle Officer, Patna, Sadar. In this

FIR also, the place of occurrence and the time of occurrence is the

same. The FIR contains names of 132 persons and further alleges

that about 1000-1200 unknown persons were involved in the

occurrence and they had placed the women and children at the

front while committing the alleged act of assault on the police

officers and setting the JCBs and police vehicles at fire. In the

third FIR lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Police-cum-Assistant

Officer Incharge of Digha Police Station again the place of

occurrence and the time of occurrence is said to be the same and

one. In the third FIR, altogether 134 persons have been named and Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1876 of 2017 dt.22-01-2024

allegedly 800-900 unknown persons were involved in the alleged

occurrence. It is alleged that the agitationists were instigated by

the named accused persons for firing on the police force. They

damaged the Government vehicles and the material exhibits which

were kept in the malkhana of the Police Station. The agitationists

also entered into the police station premises and assaulted the

family members of the police personnel. They also engaged in

snatching the arms of the police force.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a

bare reading of the three FIRs, it would appear that the allegations

in the three FIRs are the same and one, the place of occurrence and

the time of occurrence is also the same and, therefore, in terms of

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Babubhai versus State of Gujarat and Others reported in

(2010) 12 SCC 254 and Surender Kaushik and Others versus

The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2013) 5

SCC 148, the test of sameness stands satisfied. Prayer has, thus,

been made to quash the second and third FIR.

Submission of the State

6. On the other hand, Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, learned AC

to AAG-3 for the State submits that in fact in the first FIR, the

petitioner is not named. The informant is an Officer of the Bihar Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1876 of 2017 dt.22-01-2024

State Housing Board who has stated that he came to know that the

eight persons named in the FIR and about 1000 unknown persons

had committed the alleged occurrence. In the second FIR,

however, the petitioner is specifically named. In this case, the

informant is a Circle Officer and he was deputed on the spot, thus,

he has narrated the entire occurrence which had taken place in his

presence. In this FIR not only the occurrence which took place at

the Polshan road and Ghurdaud road has been narrated but even

the further act of the agitationists in making an attempt to snatch

the arms of the police force, causing assault to the police

personnel, putting a traffic jam at Digha Road and then, in course

of the said occurrence, seventy one rounds of firing having taken

place have also been narrated. Learned counsel for the State,

therefore, submits that the second FIR not only names the

petitioner but even the manner of occurrence as alleged have been

narrated in a different way from the first FIR.

7. As regards the third FIR again it is the contention of

learned counsel for the State that the petitioner is named in the said

FIR which has been registered by Sub-Inspector of Police-cum-

Assistant Officer Incharge of the Police Station who has stated that

this petitioner was one among the named accused, the agitationists

had been making rumors and they had indulged in firing on the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1876 of 2017 dt.22-01-2024

police personnel as also caused damage to the police premises and

the malkhana. The second and third FIRs have been registered

under different Sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms

Act. Learned counsel for the State submits that in such

circumstance where the three FIRs have been lodged by three

different persons and the Officer present on the spot has lodged the

second FIR in which the petitioner has been named and there are

allegations against him, the same is not fit to be quashed.

8. Learned counsel for the State has also pointed out

from the counter affidavit that the petitioner in the present case is

involved in antisocial activities which would be evident from his

criminal antecedents inasmuch as he has got five cases apart from

the present three cases on his head and he is facing allegations

which are serious in nature. The details of the cases lodged against

the petitioner since the year 2013 have been mentioned in the

counter affidavit in various paragraphs.

Consideration

9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

the State as also on perusal of the records, this Court finds that

even as the FIR has been lodged in respect of the same occurrence

which initially took place at Polshan Road and Ghurdaud Road in

course of measurement of land and demolition of wall, the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1876 of 2017 dt.22-01-2024

petitioner is not named in the First Information Report whereas in

the second and third FIR which have been lodged by the Circle

Officer who was deputed as a Magistrate and the Sub-Inspector of

Police who was Assistant Officer Incharge of the Police Station in

front of which the alleged occurrence had taken place, the

informants are eye witnesses as claimed and they have specifically

named this petitioner. The second and third FIR are giving the

narratives of the alleged occurrences in different manners, the

damage caused to the JCBs and police jeeps as also the

Government properties are mentioned in the second FIR but the

third FIR discloses that the named accused persons and the

agitationists had entered into the police premises, damaged the

police station and the material exhibits which were kept in the

malkhana of the Police Station.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon

the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Babubhai (supra) and Surender Kaushik (supra). In the case of

Babubhai (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the facts

of the case and held that both the incidents in the said case had

occurred at the same place in close proximity of time, therefore,

there are two parts of the same transactions and more so, the death

of Ajitbhai Prahladbhai has been mentioned in both the FIRs. The Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1876 of 2017 dt.22-01-2024

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraphs '20' and '21' of

the judgment as under:-

"20. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is a very important document. It is the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by the officer in charge of the police station. It sets the machinery of criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends with the formation of an opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 CrPC. Thus, it is quite possible that more than one piece of information be given to the police officer in charge of the police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case, he need not enter each piece of information in the diary. All other information given orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the facts mentioned in the first information report will be statements falling under Section 162 CrPC.

21. In such a case the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1876 of 2017 dt.22-01-2024

forward with a different version or counterclaim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted."

11. On a reading of the judgment in the case of

Babubhai (supra), it would appear that in the said case, after

lodging of the first FIR, Mr. M.N. Pandya, Sub-Inspector of Police

had lodged the second FIR and there he had stated that he reached

at the place of occurrence after receiving the information from the

police station and found that the mob had already dispersed. The

case of the prosecution was that when the police reached the place

of occurrence of the first incident, the mob had already dispersed

but it was held that the said version could not be correct for the

reason that some of the witnesses had stated that the clash was

going on when the police arrived.

12. In the case of Surender Kaushik (supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Babubhai (supra) case and held in paragraph

'24' as under:-

"24. From the aforesaid decisions, it is quite luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter-FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1876 of 2017 dt.22-01-2024

the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint. As is further made clear by the three-Judge Bench in Upkar Singh9, the prohibition does not cover the allegations made by the accused in the first FIR alleging a different version of the same incident. Thus, rival versions in respect of the same incident do take different shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is permissible."

13. From a bare reading of the conclusion reached by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surender Kaushik (supra),

it is evident that what is prohibited is any further complaint by the

same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent

to the registration of the case under the Code.

14. In this case, the petitioner is not named in the first

FIR, therefore, it cannot be said that the second FIR in which the

petitioner is named has been lodged against the same accused

subsequent to the registration of the first FIR. So far as the third

FIR is concerned, this Court finds on a bare reading of the second

and third FIRs that the allegations contained in the third FIR are

something which do not form part of the second FIR. As stated

9. [Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004) 13 SCC 292 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 211] Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1876 of 2017 dt.22-01-2024

above, in the third FIR, the informant has alleged that the

agitationists had entered into the police premises, damaged the

police station, Government vehicles and the material exhibits kept

in the malkhana.

15. For these reasons, this Court is of the opinion that

the test of sameness as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is

not satisfied in the present case so as to warrant any interference

with the second and third FIR.

16. This application has, thus, no merit. It is dismissed

accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date           23.01.2024
Transmission Date