Kiran Saw v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 1305 of 2022 Kiran Devi @ Kiran Saw .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sahil, Advocate Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party(s) : Ms. N. Sharmin, APP 07/ 27.02.2023. …... The instant Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding of Tandwa P.S. Case No.58 of 2022 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 379, 323, 325, 307, 436, 435, 353, 285, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 /4 of Damage to Public Property Act and the case is now pending in the Court of learned CJM, Chatra and the same is registered subsequent to Tandwa P.S. Case No.57 of 2022. . 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 07.03.2022 at 12.00 hrs in NTPC Gate No.1, Tandwa, Chatra, an unlawful assembly of about 128 named persons and 500 unnamed persons gathered under the banner of ‘Visthapit Vikash Sangharsh Samitee’ blocked the NTPC gate, hijacked three tanker of HPCL and attacked the Police party by pelting stones. Consequently the Police personnel were injured and thereafter the unruly mob variously armed with deadly weapon set on fire the containers and also assaulted the passers-by there. 3. It is submitted that petitioner is one of the named accused and the instant Cr.M.P. has been filed mainly on the ground that three cases have been registered on the basis of three different FIRs with regard to same incidence. It is submitted that three FIRs have been lodged for the offences committed during course of the same transaction are :- (i) First Information Report being Tandwa P.S. Case No.57 of 2022 was lodged on 08.03.2022 for the incidence occurred at 12.00 hours on 07.03.2022 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 341, 342, 323, 324, 325, 307, 435, 436, 285, 353, 504, 506 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Section 3/ 4 of Damage to Public Property Act. (ii) First Information Report being Tandwa P.S. Case No.58 of 2022 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 379, 323, 325, 307, 436, 435, 353, 285, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 /4 of Damage to Public Property Act on 08.03.2022 and the date of incidence is 07.03.2022 at 14:30 to 16.25 hours. (iii) First Information Report being Tandwa P.S. Case No.59 of 2022 was lodged by P. Sarkar, H.R. Manager, Simplex Infrastructure Limited on 08.03.2022 for the offence registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 285, 435, 436, 379, 448, 427, 307, 504, 506 IPC and the time of incidence is 15.00 hours on 07.03.2022. The place of occurrence is in the office of the Simplex situated in the NTPC in front of the DAV School. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission that whether more than one FIR can be lodged with regard to the same incidence? Reliance has been placed on 2001(6) SCC 181 and 2013(6) SCC 348. 5. It is submitted that it is a settled principle of law for an offence committed in course of same transaction, there can be only one FIR and there cannot be multiplicity of FIR. 6. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer. It is submitted that distinct offence has been committed by this petitioner at distinct time i.e. one being at 12 O’ clock and another being at 2 O’clock leading to large scale arson leading to damage of public property and obstruction of public work in exercise of their official duty and firing as well as heavy resort of pelting stone was resorted to. T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 holds the field on second FIR and the law has been laid down in no uncertain terms that in case of offences committed in the course of same transaction, there can be only one FIR and subsequent information is received will be treated as statement of the witnesses and will be hit by section 162 of the CrPC. Their Lordships held that it was quite possible that more information than one are given to a police officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case all other information made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence will be statements falling under Section 161 CrPC. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an FIR and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of CrPC. In Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 1 SCC 130 it has been held that filing another FIR in respect of the same incident having a different version of events is permissible. Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254 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 forward with a different version or counterclaim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted. 7. From the bare perusal of the two FIRs, ie Tandwa P.S. Case No.57 of 2022, and Tandwa P.S. Case No.58 of 2022 it is apparent that the second FIR was with respect to same incidence that took place on 07.03.2022 at 12.00 hrs and continued. As part of the same transaction further arson and violence was committed regarding which the latter cases were registered. As per the law settled on this point subsequent FIRs leading to institution of separate cases was not permissible. The police had power to investigate all the offences committed in the course of the same transaction. 8. The scheme of the code postulates only first information report regarding the incidence, but it does not preclude the trial court to put the accused on trial for every distinct offence under section 218 of the Cr.PC. Section 220 of the Cr.PC further provides that in one series of acts so connected together so as to form the same transaction, more offence is than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. 9. The object is to avoid multiplicity of cases and multiplicity of trial, but it does not prevent the accused being charged for more than one offence in one trial on separate charges. 9. Under the circumstance Tandwa P.S. Case No.58 of 2022 arising out of subsequent FIR is not sustainable and accordingly quashed. The statements recorded during investigation in this case will merge with the investigation already being conducted in Tandwa P.S. Case No.57 of 2022 in view of the ratio decided in Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs State of Punjab and ors (2009) 1 SCC 441. The fact of the matter remains that only the first information report can be treated as FIR and the subsequent FIR can be regarded as subsequent statements.
Decision
The instant Criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly disposed of. Sandeep/ (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)