Tarak Dash Mukharjee & Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 198 of 2018 1.Mahesh Roy @ Mahesh Ray 2.Anand Roy @ Anand Ray 3.Laxman Roy @ Laxman Ray Versus .... .. ... Petitioner(s) The State of Jharkhand. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ...........
Legal Reasoning
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : For the State : Mr. Indrajit Sinhha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate Ms. Vandana Bharti, APP 10/ 04.12.2023. …... Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. The instant Cr. M. P. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 06.12.2017 passed by learned SDJM, Koderma in Domchanch P.S. Case No.88 of 2017 (G.R. No.1152 of 2017) whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has ordered to merge the Complaint Case No.1148 of 2016 with the aforesaid FIR. 2. Official complaint being Complaint Case No.1148 of 2016 was registered on 30.08.2016 under Section 47(a), (f) of the Excise Act submitted by the Sub Inspector (Excise) and later on cognizance was taken on 20.10.2016. 3. Domchanch P.S. Case No.88 of 2017 was registered on the written report filed by S. P. (CID) on 08.11.2017 U/s 272, 273, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472, 473, 420 and 120 B of the IPC, Sections 47(A) ( b)(c) (d)(e)( f)(g), 48 and 58 of the Excise Act. The reason for institution of the FIR, has been stated in the letter addressed by the Inspector (CID) to the S.P. (CID) and the said letter enclosed with the FIR states that huge quantity of illegal foreign liquor, spirit, rapid Web seized by the excise Department. During enquiry, it came into the light that illegal liquor factory was being run which was being sold by adulterating spirit in it which was harmful for human consumption and health. 4. Petitioners are aggrieved by the institution of police case. It is submitted that with respect to the same facts, two cases are not permissible. Reliance is placed on 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 731 [Tarak Dash Mukharjee & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.] wherein it has been held that if multiple FIRs are permitted to be registered on the same set of facts and allegations, it will result that accused can be entangled in multiple criminal proceedings on the same facts. 5. Learned APP for the State has defended the impugned order. It is submitted that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as aforesaid will not apply in the present facts and circumstances of the case as there are no two such FIRs. The first is an official complaint and the cognizance under Section 2 47(a) of the Excise Act and the second is with respect to offence under the Indian Penal Code. 6. Where there are distinct offences complaint case as well as police case arising out of the same fact situation is not altogether barred. In Lakshmi Narayan Vs State of Bihar 1995(1) PLJR 843 charge-sheet was submitted by police for cognizance of an offence u/s 279 IPC and Sections 47A and 55 of Excise Act, it was held that officer in-charge of a police station can investigate an offence u/s 47 of the Excise Act and can make a complaint or report and magistrate can take cognizance because the chargesheet must be deemed to be a report as provided for in Section 87 of the Excise Act. 7. Section 210 of the Cr.P.C is intended to meet eventuality arising out of his situation where there is a complaint case and a police investigation in respect of the same offence. For better appreciation the provision is quoted below: 210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.— (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. (2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code. 8. Where a private complaint is filed and the Magistrate receives information that police is also investigating the same case, he shall stay the proceedings before him and call for report of the police officer. He made the deal with the private complaint and the case which arises out of the police report together. 9. The facts of this case is somewhat different and section 210 of the Cr. P.C. will not have direct application, because it is not a case where private complaint has been filed, but here cognizance has been taken on an official complaint. Under 3 the circumstance to stay the criminal prosecution arising out of the official complaint will result in delay and disposal of the complaint case. 10. Impugned order suffers from infirmity in as much that the two cases at different stages have been merged. In the police case investigation has not been completed, and police report has not been filed u/s 173 of the Cr.P.C. Merger of the two cases could have taken place only after cognizance in both of them. As stated earlier, it will not be in the interest of justice to stay the case arising out of official complaint.
Decision
11. Under the circumstance the impugned order is indefensible and is accordingly set aside. 12. As far as the allegations made in the police case is concerned they are by and large the same. It relates to unlawful possession, manufacture and adulteration of liquor. Provisions as contained under Section 47 and other sections like 49 and 52 of the Excise Act are sufficient to meet the entire gamut of facts. 13. It is not clear as to how the offences of forgery or cheating will be made out on the basis of allegations made in the FIR. When on the same set of facts an official complaint has already been filed and cognizance has been taken, there is no reason to permit parallel prosecution on almost the same charges. This Court is of the view that the instant criminal prosecution arising out of Domchanch P.S Case No.88 of 2017 shall be an abuse of process of Court. Under the circumstance, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Domchanch P.S Case No.88 of 2017 is quashed, so far as the petitioners are concerned. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Sandeep/Uploaded. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)