Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1198 (JHR)

Arjun Sao @ Arjun Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2012-08-08

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, as also learned counsel for the respondent No.2, who has appeared upon notice. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner in Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 128 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No. 854 of 2004 for 'the offence under Sections 448, 386, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is presently pending in ,the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. 3. A very short point has been taken for quashing the said criminal proceeding and it is submitted that from perusal of the F.I.R., it would appear that FIR was' instituted on 7.4.2004, whereas for the same occurrence earlier Complaint Case No. 44 of 2004 was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, by the same complainant against the same accused persons on 23.1.2004, which also relates to the same occurrence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proceeding in the Complaint Case No. 44 of 2004 is at the verge of conclusion so far as this petitioner is concerned. It is submitted that institution of subsequent police case for the same occurrence cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is liable to' be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the informant opposite party No.2, on the other hand, has very fairly conceded that the proceedings in the earlier complaint case against the petitioner is at the verge of conclusion and the second F.I.R. was lodged due to the fact that earlier the police had not accepted the F.I.R. lodged by the informant for which the higher police officials were informed and upon the order of the higher police officials the said F.I.R. has been lodged on 7.4.2004. Learned counsel very fairly conceded that he has no objection, if second F.I.R. is quashed as in the meantime the complaint case was filed for the same occurrence, in which the proceeding against the petitioner is at the concluding stage in Complaint Case No. 44 of 2004. 6. It is well settled principle of law that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information with respect to the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence. 6. It is well settled principle of law that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information with respect to the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence. Reference in this regard may be had to the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors.. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 . 7. In view of the settled principle of law, as also in view of the admitted fact that the proceeding against the petitioner is at concluding stage in Complaint Case No. 44 of 2004, which was earlier lodged by the informant for the same occurrence, the entire criminal proceeding qua the petitioner in Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 128 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No. 854 of 2004, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, is hereby quashed. 10. This writ petition is, accordingly allowed. Petition allowed.