Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 42 (JHR)

Sudhanshu Trivedi v. State of Jharkhand

2012-01-06

G.JHA, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
Judgment By Court Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Complaint case no. 2507 of 2009 has been submitted by the brother-in-law of Kaushal Kishore Sahay and the said complaint was forwarded to the police station, obviously under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. , but belatedly on 18th January,2011 FIR was registered by the police being Baraitu PS Case No. 24 of 2011. This Kaushal Kishore Sahay himself submitted another report to the police, copy of which has been placed on record at page no.29 of the writ petition . 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there cannot be two FIR for the same offence. It is submitted that the other coaccused have been granted anticipatory bail by the order of the High Court. It is submitted that there was no involvement of the writ petitioner in any manner and, therefore, criminal proceeding may be quashed. It is also submitted that even a Title Suit is pending before the Civil court in the matter where petitioner's contention is that he has purchased the property much prior to the alleged purchase by the complainant and, therefore, in view of the pendency of the civil suit also, this criminal case cannot continue. It is also submitted that the parties may be referred to the Lok Adalat. 4. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the report submitted by Kaushal Kishore Sahay, which appears to be dated 15th April, 2010, to the Officer incharge of the Bariatu police station , Ranchi as well as FIR being Baraitu PS Case No.24 of 2011, which has been registered on making a complaint by the brother-in-law of the complainant, Kaushal Kishore Sahay. So far as one offence is concerned, there can be one investigation and one Challan or Final Form can be filed . In the present case, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner himself, Challan has been filed against all the other accused persons, except the present petitioner and learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that his interest may be protected. 5. From the contents of the complaint and the report given by Kaushal Kishore Sahay himself, it cannot be said that the complaint or the FIR does not constitute commission of any offence , however, subject to investigation. 5. From the contents of the complaint and the report given by Kaushal Kishore Sahay himself, it cannot be said that the complaint or the FIR does not constitute commission of any offence , however, subject to investigation. Therefore, there appears to be no reason for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated by lodging complaint and persuaded by making another report by Kaushal Kishore Sahay. So far as referring matter to the Lok Adalat is concerned, only compoundable offence can be referred to the Lok Adalat and not others. In this fact situation, matter cannot be referred to the Lok Adalat, so far as this criminal case is concerned. Furthermore, for other matters in civil case, the matter can be referred to the Lok Adalat with the consent of the parties by passing order by the Court where case is pending. However, so far as protection of right of the 3. petitioner is concerned, for that he is free to move before the appropriate Court for obtaining the bail, which may be considered by the Court, in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.