The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Dharm Nath Bhagat Cr.M.P. No. 2571 of 2016 ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Arun Rabidas -------- ..... … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ : : : ------ 04/ 11.06.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P. Mr. Md. Asadul Haque, Advocate. For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No. 2 A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2. 2. Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 27.11.2014, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with Amrapara P.S. Case No. 01 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 05 of 2014, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pakur. 3. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that on 04/01/2014 an F.I.R. was registered with Amrapara Police Station on the basis of complaint petition of the informant Arun Rabidas, Panchayat Sevak of Jaraki, Amrapara. He stated that on 02/08/2013 when he opened the almira of Panchayat Bhawan he found the cheque no. 628535 and cheque no. 317 of for Narega fund was taken away from the cheque books. He further alleged that the peon of S.B.I. Amrapara Branch told him that on 16/08/2013 the cheque no. 628535 was encashed by the petitioner with the connivance of staff of S.B.I., Amrapara and cheque of Narega was also encashed by the accused persons including the petitioner. The Court below directed the Amrapara Officer-in-Charge to register an F.I.R. under section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. and investigate. 4. Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for the identical allegation, another FIR, being Amrapara P.S. Case No. 65 of 2013 was lodged against the informant of the present case for the same offence by one Manoj Kisku on the basis of complaint case. She submits that in that complaint case, it was alleged that the informant, who was the panchayat sewak was the -1- custodian of the cheque book and Arjun Rabidas in connivance with Ramji Bhagat and Shri Ram Bhagat has misappropriated the amount of Rs. 1,75,000/-. She further submits that during investigation, the name of the petitioner has also come and the petitioner was also chargesheeted in that case and for the same allegation, the present case has been filed. She also submits that petitioner has faced the trial in Amrapara P.S. Case No. 65 of 2013 and he has been acquitted in that case by the judgment dated 10.08.2023 by the learned court. She submits that for the same offence, the present case has been lodged and to allow the proceeding will amount to an abuse of the process of law as well as the double jeopardy against the petitioner. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer on the ground that there is allegation of embezzlement of Government money against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that now the trial has proceeded and reached to Section 313 Cr.P.C. procedure and in view of that this court may not interfere in the matter at this stage and this petitioner may take all the grounds in the trial. 7. The first FIR as well as the FIR of the present case are available on record. The court is required to examine the facts and circumstance giving rise of 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. 8. Looking into the facts of Amrapara P.S. Case No. 65 of 2013 as well as the present FIR, which is the subject matter in this petition, the court finds that the embezzlement amount is similar in both the cases as well as the allegations are almost same. 9. In the first case, the petitioner has faced the trial and he has been acquitted by the learned court and the present case is pending and the learned court is proceeding in the matter. Even if the trial is proceeded and if the court comes to a conclusion to allow the proceeding will amount to an abuse of the process of law, the court can exercise its power at any stage, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta & Anr. Versus -2- State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Department of Home & Anr., reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras-14 and 16 held as follows:- like to deal with the 14. First, we would submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 that once the charge sheet is filed, petition for quashing of FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat2. In the case of Joseph Salvaraj A. (supra), this Court while deciding the question whether the High Court could entertain the 482 petition for quashing of FIR, when the charge sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the 482 petition, observed: - “16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant’s FIR. Even if the charge-sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant’s FIR, charge- sheet, documents, etc. or not.” “16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, para 7 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513. Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591, para 20 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 338 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 237] . Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power is -3- undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.” 10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the court finds that the contents of both the case are similar. For the same transcation, two proceedings cannot be allowed in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of “ T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala” reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181. To allow the second F.I.R. to continue will amount to an abuse of process of law. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 27.11.2014, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with Amrapara P.S. Case No. 01 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 05 of 2014, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pakur, are hereby, quashed. 12.
Decision
This petition is allowed and disposed of. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) -4-