Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 357 (PAT)

Radhakant Lal Das v. State of Bihar

2012-02-28

VIKASH JAIN

body2012
JUDGMENT Vikash Jain, J. – This application has been filed quashing the First Information Report dated 4.8.2010 in connection with Madhepur P.S, Case No. 125/2010 and G.R No. 962/2010 in the Court of A.C.J.M., Jhanjharpur, which has been instituted in connection with the alleged irregularity in construction of school building situated at Suri Samaj Middle School, Madhepur, where old bricks are said to have been used in the construction. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as a matter of fact, this is the second First Information Report which has been filed in connection with the same occurrence. He states that earlier also, an First Information Report had been instituted against the Secretary. School Shiksha Samiti, Sri Arun Kumar Purve, who had been authorized to have the school building constructed with a view to avoid unnecessary delay in construction work, as the petitioner who is the Head Master of the school was busy with school work. It was unanimously decided that the said Sri Arun Kumar Purve would look after the construction work and that the head master would pay the amounts as and when required. 3. Detailed investigation is said to have been made in connection with the earlier First Information Report especially with reference to the role of the head master, the petitioner, but after full inquiry it appears that a charge-sheet came to be submitted only against Sri Arun Kumar Purve and not against this petitioner. 4. It is stated that the present First Information Report is not maintainable as it is founded on the same set of facts and there is nothing to show that the earlier investigation had not been made in a proper way. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has also relied upon various decisions including those reported in 2007 (1) PLJR 590 . Dinesh Singh @ Dinesh Kr. Singh v. State of Bihar and others: (2010) 12 SCC 254 . Babubhai v. State of Gujrat and others & (2001) 6 SCC 181 , T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others, in line with the well settled principles of law relating to two First Information Reports being flied in connection with the same or connected offence relating to the same incident or incidents which are parts of the same transaction. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police. wherein the facts are admitted but it is stated that the petitioner was the custodian of the Government amount and also the agent of the construction of the building along with the Secretary. Arun Kumar Purve and as such they are both responsible for the defalcation of the amounts in question. It has further been stated that in the earlier First Information Report the involvement of the petitioner was not examined and the charge-sheet was submitted only against the Secretary namely Sri Arun Kumar Purve. 7. This Court has thus no hesitation in applying the test of sameness to hold that in the present case nothing has been stated to distinguish the basis of the two First Information Reports and it is quite clear that the two First Information Reports both relate to one and the same transaction and has been instituted for the solitary purpose of implicating the petitioner, as is evident from the First Information Report itself. In this view of the matter, therefore, the second First Information Report is clearly not maintainable. 8. The legal principles with regard to maintainability of a second First Information Report are well-settled. A recent decision of the Apex Court reported in (2012) 1 SCC 130 . Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar and another once again explains that the law does not prohibit registration and investigation of two First Information Reports in respect of the same incident, provided that the versions in the two are different and that the test of sameness is applied. 9. In the above circumstances the Impugned First Information Report dated 4.8.2010 in Madhepur P.S. Case No. 125/2010 pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. Jhanjharpur, is hereby quashed. 10. Needless to say, it is always open to the police authorities to take recourse to, Section 173(8) in case the available materials justify such action in accordance with law. 11. With the above observations, this petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.