Mahendra Pal v. The State of Jharkhand and Another
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- W.P.(Cr.) No. 220 of 2023 Mahendra Pal -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another ---- .... Petitioner .... Respondents ----
Legal Reasoning
occurrence and the incident are identical. It is well settled that if on the same facts two cases are registered the first case is required to be tried and that has been held in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami . Union of India, (2020) 14 SCC 12 wherein at paragraph no.30 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “30. The fundamental basis on which the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 32 is the filing of multiple FIRs and complaints in various States arising from the same cause of action. The cause of action was founded on a programme which was telecast on R Bharat on 21 April 2020. FIRs and criminal complaints were lodged against the petitioner in the States of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana and Jharkhand besides the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir. The law concerning multiple criminal proceedings on the same cause of action has been analyzed in a judgment of this Court in TT Antony v State of Kerala (TT Antony). Speaking for a two judge Bench, Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri interpreted the provisions of Section 154 and cognate provisions of the Cr.P.C including Section 173 and observed: every 20.under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus, there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on subsequent receipt of information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 CrP.C.” 6. The Court is required to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIR and the complaint and test of 4 sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIR/complaint 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. Looking into the complaint as well as the FIR the Court finds that the place of occurrence, time of occurrence and the contents are
Arguments
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners For the State :- :- --- Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate Md. Asghar, Advocate ---- 3/25.07.2023 This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R in Ramgarh P.S.Case No.37 of 2022 (Annexure-1) registered for the offence under section 379, 413 and 414 of the I.P.C and section 21(5) of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and section 13 of Jharkhand (Prevention of Illegal Mining Storage and Transportation) Rule, 2017 and section 37 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and section 30(C), 33(B), 33(C) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment Act, 1989) for the same transaction in which Complaint (O.C.R.) Case No.584 of 2022 has been earlier registered, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dumka. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that a written report was made by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dumka to the Officer in Charge, Ramgarh Police Station, Dumka wherein it has been alleged that on 01.04.2022 one tractor loaded with illegal coal was seized near Hathi More against which Complaint (O.C.R.) Case No.584 of 2022 was registered. In course of enquiry of the said case involvement of several persons along with present petitioner came in light who were indulged in illegal business of coal from the forest area. 3. Mr. Rishav Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR has been maliciously registered against the petitioner. He submits that prior to the registration of the instant FIR the 2 complaint being Complaint (O.C.R.) Case No.584 of 2022 was registered for the alleged offence committed under section 30(C), 33, 41, 42, 52 and 64 of the Indian Forest Act. He submits that in Ramgarh P.S.Case No.37 of 2022 which is the subject matter of the present petition, it is crystal clear that on the basis of the Complaint (O.C.R.) Case No.584 of 2022 the present F.I.R has been registered. He submits that the place of occurrence, time of occurrence and the incidence which has been triggred in registered the Complaint (O.C.R.) Case No.584 of 2022, an FIR being Ramgarh P.S.Case No.37 of 2022 is one and same and therefore only one complaint in this incident and there cannot be multiple complaints/FIR for the solitary incident. He submits that the present FIR may kindly be quashed. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Tarak Dash Mukharjee and Others v. The State of Uttar Praesh and Others, MANU/SCOR/13046/2022 wherein at paragraph no.12 it has been held 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 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.” 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the FIR has been registered and investigation is still going on and at this stage this Court may not interfere in the matter. 5. In view of the above submission of the learned counsels appearing for the parties the Court has gone through the contents of the FIR as well as the Complaint (O.C.R.) Case No.584 of 2022 and finds that the FIR is registered on the basis of Complaint (O.C.R.) Case No.584 of 3 2022 and the complainant and the informant in both the case is Dhiraj Ravidas. The contents of the FIR as well as Complaint (O.C.R.) Case No.584 of 2022 are similar and even the date of occurrence, place of
Decision
similar. In view of the above reasons and analysis the Court finds that the content of both the cases are similar and for the same set of occurrence two proceedings cannot be allowed in view of the judgment in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181. The case law relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the cae of Tarak Das Mukherjee and Others(supra) is supporting the case of the petitioner and to allow the present FIR to continue further will amount to abuse of process of law. 7. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R in Ramgarh P.S.Case No.37 of 2022 (Annexure-1) pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dumka, so far it relates to the petitioner is concerned is quashed. 8. This petition is allowed and disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/,