Sunita Singh v. The State of Jharkhand

Sunita Singh, aged about 48 years, W/o Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, R/o Sector 2/D, Q. No. 3-082, PO & PS B.S. City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand, 827002.

Prashant Chandravanshi @ Paras Ram @ Paras Ram Chandravanshi, aged about 66 years, S/o late Sidheswar Ram, R/o Sector 12/C, Q. No. 1313, PO & PS Sector 12, District Bokaro, Jharkhand, 827012. Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand … Petitioners

2. Forest Officer, Chas Forest Office, Office at District Forest Office, Chas, PO & PS Chas, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners For the State : Mr. Bhaibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal prosecution 1 Cr. M.P. No.3885 of 2022 (2025:JHHC:27611) including the order dated 19.06.2020 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro in Complaint Case (B.F.) No.1227 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 (Bihar Amendment Act 1989) against the petitioners.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that for the self same occurrence earlier Complaint Case No. 1102 of 2019 was instituted against the petitioners and the allegation in the said case as well as the present case being C.P. Forest Case No. 1227 of 2019 inter-alia is that the petitioners along with co-accused persons inside the forest boundary over Plot No. 978 constructed a PCC road years ago and also constructed a boundary wall and the tank of the latrine as also constructed culvert over a rivulet and in this fashion they have made illegal encroachment over the forest land.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Tarak Dash Mukharjee & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.” reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 731. Para-12 of which reads 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 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 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.”

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that 2 Cr. M.P. No.3885 of 2022 (2025:JHHC:27611) the act of the registration of 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. Hence, it is submitted that this being the subsequent proceeding in respect of the same set of facts as alleged in Complaint Case No. 1102 of 2019 of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, hence the continuation of this case will amount to abuse of the process of law, therefore, the prayer, as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners and fairly submits that the allegations made in both the complaints are based on same set of facts but it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the allegations made in Complaint Case No. 1102 of 2019 of the Court of learned CJM, Bokaro is on the same set of facts, as that of this case. In view of the same this Court has no hesitation in holding that registration of the successive complaints on the same set of facts at the instance of same informant will not stand scrutiny of Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case (B.F.) No.1227 of 2019 will amount to abuse of process of law and therefore this is a fit case where the entire criminal prosecution including the order taking cognizance dated 19.06.2020 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., 3 Cr. M.P. No.3885 of 2022 (2025:JHHC:27611) Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case (B.F.) No.1227 of 2019, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.

Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution including the order taking cognizance dated 19.06.2020 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case (B.F.) No.1227 of 2019 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.

In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10th of September, 2025 AFR/ RKM 4 Cr. M.P. No.3885 of 2022