1.Sanjay Pradhan 2.Tarni Pradhan 3.Kalpana Devi v. The State of Jharkhand and Another
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- Cr.M.P. No. 2624 of 2020 ---- 1.Sanjay Pradhan 2.Tarni Pradhan 3.Kalpana Devi .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 2727 of 2020 ---- Dinesh Pradhan .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another ---- .... Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate ---- 4/02.05.2024 In both the petitions, a common question of facts and F.I.R are under challenge and in view of that, both these petitions have been heard together with consent of the parties. 2. In both these petitions the prayer has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Adityapur P.S.Case No.129 of 2020, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial 1 Cr.M.P. No. 2624 of 2020 with Cr.M.P. No. 2727 of 2020 Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan. 3. Adityapur P.S. Case No.129 of 2020 was lodged alleging therein the informant has entered into an agreement with the petitioner for sale of land admeasuring 111.65 kathas situated in Village Asangi, Ward No.22, plot no.2473, 2485, 2484, 2488, 2487, 2492, 501, 2502 of Khata No.48, 50 and 234 for consideration of price 1.30 lakh per katha. It has been further stated that since December, 2010 to January, 2017, a sum of Rs.1,14,49,888/- has been given to the petitioners by way of cash and cheque to which they have issued money receipts with their own signature and thumb impression for the respective dates. It has further been alleged that the petitioners neither delivered the possession of the land in the favour of O.P.No.2 nor had executed any registered sale deed request by the O.P.No.2. It has been alleged that petitioners have dishonest intention to cheat the O.P.No.2 from the very beginning by deceitful means and has dishonestly induced the O.P.No.2 to deliver Rs.1,14,49,888/- in favour of the petitioners having no intention at all to transfer the land in favour of the O.P.No.2 and now they have misappropriated the money given by the O.P.No.2. 4. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that O.P.No.2 has lodged the case based on the same set of allegations and on the same facts as earlier made in the year 2019 and the same has been registered as R.I.T P.S. Case No.100 of 2019 dated 15.08.2019. He submits that the allegation in both the cases are similar and for the same transaction two cases have been lodged. According to him, R.I.T. P.S. Case is still pending and thereafter the present case has been lodged by way of Annexure-3. He 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2624 of 2020 with Cr.M.P. No. 2727 of 2020 submits that the petitioners have been noticed under section 41A of the Cr.P.C. and they filed their reply by letter dated 15.09.2019 and thereafter the petitioners have not received any notice or summons for further enquiry in the said case. He submits that the allegations are made that the development agreement was entered into between the parties and the same was not enforced and in this background only the case has been lodged. He further submits that the petitioners are land owners and the O.P.No.2 is developer. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the transaction is same, however, the allegations are different and in view of that these two cases are maintained and to buttress his such argument he relied in the case of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Others, reported in 2010 12 SCC 254 and refers to paragraph no.20 and 21 of the said judgment, which are quoted below : “20. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that an FIR under section 154 Cr.PC is very important document. It is the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by the officer in charge of the police station. It sets the machinery of criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends with the formation of an opinion under section 169 or 170 Cr.PC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under section 173 CrPC. Thus, it is quite possible that more than one piece of information be given to the police officer in charge of the police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case, he need not enter each piece of information in the diary. All other information given orally or in writing after the commencement o the investigation into the facts mentioned in the first 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2624 of 2020 with Cr.M.P. No. 2727 of 2020 information report will be statements filling under section 162 CrPC. 21. In such a case the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the RIRs and the test of sameness is to be ap-plied to find out whether both the RIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are to 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.” He submits 6. that the allegations are there of not implementing the terms and conditions of the agreement and in view of that the case is made out. On these grounds, he submits that only the FIR is under challenge and both these petitions may kindly be rejected. 7. Mr. Vats the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that the transaction is same, but, the allegations are different and in view of that both the cases can be maintained and rightly the second FIR has been lodged wherein the allegations are made that petitioners have entered into the office of the developer and they have made hooliganism and in view of that, the second FIR is maintainable. He submits that date, time of incidence is also different. On these grounds, he submits that these two petitions may kindly be dismissed. 8. R.I.T. P.S. Case No.100 of 2019 was registered on 15.08.2019 and that was pursuant to the direction of the learned court 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2624 of 2020 with Cr.M.P. No. 2727 of 2020 under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C as earlier complaint case was filed which was sent to the police for investigation. In the said complaint, it is alleged that khata no.48A and others the petitioners are the owners and shareholders entered into agreement to sell in the year 2011 with respect to 111.61 kathas of land for consideration of Rs.1,30,000/- per katha and certain consideration amount was paid and in that case it is further alleged that when the informant were doing the work at the site, the petitioners along with others armed with deadly weapons arrived and hurled with abusive language. Adityapur P.S. Case No.129 of 2020 was registered on 09.09.2020 pursuant to the complaint case No.87 of 2020 which was sent by the leraned court under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the said complaint in paragraph no.4 it is stated that in the month of December, 2010 the accused approached and contacted the complainant and showed their willingness to sell the plot of land of 111.65 kathas. Thus, the contents of both the complaint case which have been converted into the FIR, are similar and this aspect has also been admitted in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent State that the transaction is same, however, the occurrence is different. Further the petitioner no.2, Tarni Pradhan is aged about 85 years and petitioner no.3, Kalpana Devi is aged about 60 years who is wife of Narendra Pradhan and they have also been made accused in the complaint case as alleged that all the accused persons have entered into the office of the O.P.No.2 and made hooliganism. Prima facie it is unbelievable that a persons aged about 85 years will go along with other family members to make such offence as alleged in the said complaint. In the case relied by Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned State counsel in the 5 Cr.M.P. No. 2624 of 2020 with Cr.M.P. No. 2727 of 2020 case of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Others(supra), in paragraph no.21 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the clear terms that the test of sameness is to be applied to find out that whether both the FIRs relate to the same incidence inspite of same occurrence or are in regard to the incidence which are two or more parts of the same transaction and if the answer is in affirmative, the second F.I.R is liable to be quashed and that principle is well settled and that has been considered in several cases including in the case of Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1979) 2 SCC 322 and further in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181. Thus, in the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the State, the law is well settled that sameness is how to be found out if two FIRs are registered for the same transaction. 9. What has been discussed herein clearly suggest that for the same transaction both the FIRs have been lodged. In the second FIR, certain allegations are made of entering into the office and looking into the age of the petitioners nos.2 and 3, prima facie, it appears that the allegations have been maliciously lodged against the petitioners. Further, only adding additional sections in the subsequent FIR that is not the ground to maintain the second FIR which has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Chand Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2020) 3 SCC 54. Thus, only on the ground of certain new alleged allegation the second FIR further not maintainable. What has been noted in the argument of the learned counsel for the State that the second FIR is lodged for non-implementation of certain term and condition of the agreement, if such fact is there, the remedy is 6 Cr.M.P. No. 2624 of 2020 with Cr.M.P. No. 2727 of 2020 elsewhere to file the case for specific performance whereas the second FIR is lodged which is further not maintainable as held in the case of Prem Chand Singh(supra). 10.
Decision
In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, to allow the second F.I.R to continue, will amount to abuse of process of law and certainly this case is further covered in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal reported in (1992) 1 Supp. 335. 11. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding arising out of Adityapur P.S.Case No.129 of 2020, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan are quashed. 12. Cr.M.P. No.2624 of 2020 and Cr.M.P. No.2727 of 2020 are allowed and disposed of. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with the first F.I.R being R.I.T. P.S. Case No.100 of 2019. 14. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/, A.F.R. 7 Cr.M.P. No. 2624 of 2020 with Cr.M.P. No. 2727 of 2020