The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 516 of 2023 Ashiq Ansari @ Ashik Ansari, son of Md. Suleman Miyan, resident of Village Tutilawa, Pundra, PO Tutilawa, PS Simariya, District Chatra. … Petitioner -versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Gulshan Banu wife of Ashiq Ansari @ Ashik Ansari and daughter of late Yasin Ansari, resident of Village Dhengura, Pannatand, PO PS Katkamdag, District Hazaribag. … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Deepankar, AC to GA III Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Advocate ---- 7/ 29.01.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the
Legal Reasoning
State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner, by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the First Information Report registered as Katkamdag Police Station Case No.182 of 2022, registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 498A, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. His contention is that this First Information Report is a subsequent First Information Report on the same facts and same evidence for which earlier Simaria Police Station Case No.66 of 2022 was instituted for offences under Sections 323, 307, 379, 498A, 34, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner takes this Court through both the First Information Reports and relies upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala and Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181; Babubhai versus State of Gujarat & Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254; Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah versus Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348; and Tarak Dash Mukherjee & Others versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 2121. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the 1st First Information Report was initiated on police report and the second one was filed as complaint petition and later on sent by the Court in terms of Section 156(3) for registering the First Information Report and investigating the same. He submits that in the 1st First Information Report, there is no allegation of offence -: 2 :- under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, but, in the second prosecution, Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was inserted as the same was missing in the 1st First Information Report. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the police, after investigation, has submitted chargesheet in Katkamdag Police Station Case No.182 of 2022. 6. 7. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the records. The law is well settled in this issue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Tarak Dash Mukherjee & Others versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2121, at paragraph 12 thereof has held as follows: - “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 entagled in multiple criminal proceedings for the sake alleged offence. Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the act of the registration of such successive 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.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala and Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, has held that there cannot be a second First Information Report and fresh investigation, on receipt of every subsequent report with respect to the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. 9. In the case of Babubhai versus State of Gujarat and Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 21 thereof has held as follows: - “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 -: 3 :- different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the accused in the FIR comes forward with a different version or counterclaim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted.” 10. After considering both the above judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken similar view in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah versus Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348. 11. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, when I go through the First Information Reports, I find that the 1st First Information Report, being Simaria Police Station Case No.66 of 2022, was instituted by the wife. The First Information Report states that she was married in 2019 with Ashiq Ansari. At the time of marriage, dowry was given to the family. Thereafter torture was being perpetrated upon her and demand of Rs.1,00,000/- and a motorcycle was made. She was harassed, abused verbally and physically also for demand of dowry. On 30.04.2021, she was assaulted and was taken out and left in a Jungle. Thereafter she went to her paternal home. A son was born on 06.01.2022, but inspite of information, in-laws did not come and meet her. On 20.04.2022, her husband came to her house and requested her to accompany him. He assured that there will be no physical torture in future nor there will be demand of dowry. On the said assurance, on 21.10.2022, informant along with her mother went to her matrimonial home, but she was not allowed to enter. Thereafter demand was also made. It is alleged that the informant and her mother were abused verbally and were assaulted. Neighbours tried to resolve the dispute, but in vain. It is alleged that the ornaments were taken out from her Godrej Almirah thus, the First Information Report was instituted. 12. The second First Information Report being Katkamdag Police Station Case No.182 of 2022 is lodged on the basis of complaint, which was sent under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for registering the First Information Report and starting investigation. 13. When I go through the said complaint petition, which formed the basis for registering the First Information Report being Katkamdag Police Station Case No.182 of 2022, I find that the allegations are exactly the same, which are there in the 1st First Information Report. Thus, on the same set of allegations, there cannot be two First Information Reports, registered nor there can be two parallel investigations. -: 4 :- 14. Thus, in view of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as referred to hereinbefore, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. The First Information Report being Katkamdag Police Station Case No.182 of 2022 and the Chargesheet No.81 of 2022 filed by the police in the said First Information Report are hereby quashed and set aside. 15. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending Interlocutory
Decision
Applications, if any, stand disposed of. Kumar/Cp-03 (Ananda Sen, J.)