Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 557 (PAT)

Mukul Kumar @ A. J. v. State of Bihar

2022-07-06

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD

body2022
ORDER While considering the prayer for bail of the petitioner in the present case, this court noticed that the police had registered two different F.I.Rs. in respect of the same matter arising out of the same transaction. This Court granted bail to the petitioner but in the concluding part of it’s order this Court called upon the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna to file an affidavit as to whether lodging of two separate cases in respect of the same transaction is logical and permissible in law and is it not burdening the load of investigation on police and simuntaneously the whole judicial system in terms of pendency of cases. 2. Today, an affidavit duly sworn by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna has been filed. Annexure ‘A’ to the said affidavit is a copy of memo no. 1531/Policy decision dated 13.06.2022 issued under the signature of the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. A guideline has been issued to the investigating agency in the matter of registration of F.I.R. it is based on some of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are discussed in paragraph ‘3’ of the guideline. For purpose of a ready reference Annexure ‘A’ is being reproduced hereunder:— ^^fcgkj iqfyl eq[;ky; ¼vijk/k vuqla/kku foHkkx ,oa detksj oxZ ÁHkkx½ vkns'k 1- dkaMksa ds vuqla/kku dh leh{kk esa ns[kus esa vk;k gS fd ,d gh ?kVuk ;k ?kVukØe esa RkF;ksa] ?kVukLFky ,oa ?kVukØe dh lekurk ds ckotwn fofHkUu vf/kfu;eksa dh /kkjkvksa ds vUrxZr ,d ls T;knk ÁkFkfedh ntZ dh tk jgh gSA dqN ,sls Hkh n`"Vkar lkeus vk;s gSa] ftlesa ,d gh ?kVukØe ;k laO;ogkj ds Hkkx gksus okys rF;ksa esa fofHkUu O;fDr;ksa ds c;ku@vkosnu ds vk/kkj ij vyx&vyx dbZ ÁkFkfedh ntZ dh x;h gS] tks fof/klEer ugha gSA 2- fØŒ felŒ uEcj 64578@2021 eqdqy dqekj ,sŒtsŒ cuke fcgkj jkT; esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk fnukad 06-05-2022 dks ikfjr vkns'k esa fVIi.kh dh gS] fd%& "…Whether lodging of the two separate cases in respect of the same transaction is logical and permissible in law and is it not burdening the load of investigation on police and simultaneously the whole judicial system in terms of pendency of cases. Prima-facie, in a case of this nature lodging of two criminal cases one after another does not inspire confidence." 3- mi;ZqDr fo"k; ls lacaf/kr fofHkUu ekeyksa esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk foLr`r U;k;kns'k ikfjr fd;s x;s gSa] ftuesa ls dqN U;k;kns'kksa ds eq[; va'k fuEu Ádkj gSa%& In T.T. Antony vs State of Kerala and Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed, “There can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences as the police officer has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC” and quashed the third FIR lodged on the basis of inquiry report of commission. In Surender Kaushik Vs. State of U.P., the Hon’ble Supreme Court summed up that it is quite luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint. In Shiv Shanker Singh Vs. State of Bihar, where two FIRs had been registered in relation to a case of dacoity, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in that the law does not prohibit registration and investigation of two FIRs in respect of the same incident in case the versions are different and that the test of sameness has to be applied. In Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P., the Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out that it is a settled principle that there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. In Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P., the Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out that it is a settled principle that there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. But the Supreme Court added a note of caution as follows: However, where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different, or even where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded first, then a second FIR could be registered. The question has to be examined on the merits of each case whether a subsequently registered FIR is a second FIR about the same incident or offence or is based upon distinct and different facts and whether its scope of inquiry is entirely different or not. The Court indicated that no straight-jacket formula, uniformly applicable to all cases can be laid down and that it will always be a mixed question of law and facts. In Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh Vs. State of Gujarat, where a Multi State Cooperative Bank failed to repay its depositors, a series of party-wise complaints for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467 and 471 read with 120B of the IPC were filed by the bank. On all these complaints, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ordered an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. The accused filed application for recall of the order and the matter landed up in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the case of the accused in Rameshchandra did not fall within the principles enunciated in T.T. Antony. The court pointed out that the complaints of malfeasance and misfeasance registered later, were not in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences nor were they alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and did not allow the appeal. The court pointed out that the complaints of malfeasance and misfeasance registered later, were not in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences nor were they alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and did not allow the appeal. 4- iqfyl dks naM ÁfØ;k lafgrk esa vijk/k dh ÁFke bfRryk ,oa vuqla/kku ds laca/k esa ÁkIr 'kfDr;ksa ,oa Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn&19 ,oa 21 esa ukxfjdksa dks ÁnRr ekSfyd vkf/kdkjksa esa larqyu cuk jguk vko';d gSA 5- naM ÁfØ;k lafgrk 1973 ds v/;k;&12 esa /kkjk&154 ls 176 rFkk fcgkj iqfyl gLrd] 1978 ds v/;k;&8 ,oa 9 esa ÁFke bfRryk ,oa muds vUos"k.k dh 'kfDr;ka ,oa ÁfØ;k ÁnRr gSa ftudk v{kj'k% vuqikyu jkT; ds ÁR;sd iqfyl inkf/kdkjh ds fy, ck/;dkjh gSA 6- vr% ÁFke bfRryk ,oa vuqla/kku ds laca/k esa fof/kd Áko/kkuksa dh ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fofHkUu U;k;kns'kksa esa dh x;h O;k[;k] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] IkVuk }kjk ikfjr U;k;kns'k] n.M ÁfØ;k lafgrk ds Áko/kku ,oa fcgkj iqfyl gLrd esa fofgr ÁfØ;k ds v{kj'k% vuqikyu ds laca/k esa ,d gh ?kVukØe ;k laO;ogkj ds rF;ksa ij ÁkFkfedh ntZ djus ds fcUnq ij Li"Vrk gsrq fuEufyf[kr funsZ'k fn;s tkrs gSa% ¼1½ iqfyl }kjk Nkikekjh ds Øe esa ,d gh ?kVukLFky@?kVukØe@le; esa rRle; ykxw fofHkUu vf/kfu;eksa dh /kkjkvksa ds vUrxZr vijk/k dh lwpuk@tIrh ik;s tkus ij fofHkUu vf/kfu;eksa ds vUrxZr vyx&vyx ÁkFkfedh ntZ u dj ,d gh ÁkFkfedh ntZ dj vuqla/kku fd;k tk;A tc ,d gh ?kVukLFky@?kVukØe@le; esa ?kfVr nks ;k vf/kd vijk/kksa dk laKku ysus okys l{ke U;kf;d Áf/kdkj i`Fkd gksa] oSlh fLFkfr esa gh i`Fkd ÁkFkfedh ntZ dj vuqla/kku ÁkjEHk fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼2½ ,d gh ?kVukØe esa ;k laO;ogkj ds rF;ksa ij ,d ;k vf/kd ihfM+r i{k ds c;ku ij vusd ÁkFkfedh ntZ ugha tk;saA ;Fkk ,d gh ?kVuk esa t[eh fofHkUu O;fDr;ksa ds vkosnu ij vyx&vyx ÁkFkfedh ntZ u fd;k tk;A ÁkIr ÁFke lwpuk ij ntZ ÁkFkfedh esa gh i'pkrorhZ lHkh c;ku@vkosnu@rF;ksa dks lekfgr dj vuqla/kku fd;k tk;A ¼3½ ?kVukØe esa nŒÁŒlaŒ dh /kkjk&154 ds vUrxZr ÁFke bfRryk fjiksZV ntZ gksus ds mijkar vuqla/kku ds Øe esa ÁkIr dksbZ Hkh fyf[kr ;k ekSf[kd c;ku ;k vU; rF; ftlls ntZ /kkjkvksa ls vyx vijk/k gksus dh iqf"V gksrh gS rks mDr c;ku@rF; dks nŒÁŒlaŒ dh /kkjk&161 ,oa 162 ds vUrxZr ntZ djrs gq, ntZ ÁkFkfedh ds vuqla/kku esa gh lekfgr fd;k tk;A ¼4½ ntZ dkaM ds vuqla/kku lekfIr ds mijkar vafre Ái= lefÁr djus ds i'pkr ;fn ,sls rF;@c;ku@vkosnu ÁkIr gksrs gSa] ftl ij vuqla/kku djuk vko';d gS rks vyx ls ÁkFkfedh ntZ u dj] igys ls ntZ ÁkFkfedh esa gh vxzrj vuqla/kku gsrq nŒÁŒlaŒ dh /kkjk&173¼8½ ds rgr fufgr Áko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tk;A ¼5½ ;fn ntZ dkaM ds vuqla/kku esa ÁkFkfedh esa ntZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjkvksa ls vyx vf/kfu;e ds /kkjkvksa ds vUrxZr vijk/k ÁdV gksrk gS rks mu /kkjkvksa dks Hkh ntZ ÁkFkfedh ds vuqla/kku esa gh lekfgr fd;k tk;] u fd ml vf/kfu;e esa nwljh ÁkFkfedh ntZ dh tk;A ;Fkk ;fn fdlh O;fDr@vijk/kh ds ikl okgu tkap ds Øe esa gfFk;kj cjken gksrk gS rFkk 'kL= vf/kfu;e ds rgr ÁkFkfedh ntZ ,oa okgu tIr dj vuqla/kku ds Øe esa tIr okgu pksjh dk gksus dk rF; mtkxj gksus ij mDr laca/k esa vyx ls dkaM u ntZ dj HkkŒnŒfoŒ dh lqlaxr /kkjkvksa esa vuqla/kku djrs gq, vafre Ái= esa mudk lekos'k fd;k tk;A ¼6½ fdlh ?kVukdze esa ÁkFkfedh ntZ djus gsrq ,d ls vf/kd ÁkIr vkosnu ij ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk funsf'kr "the test of sameness of the truth and substance of gravamen of charges" ds fl)kar ds vk/kkj ij fu.kZ; fy;k tk;A ÁkIr vkosnu esa ;fn ,d gh ?kVukØe@vkjksiksa bR;kfn dh iqf"V gksrh gS rks ÁFke vkosnu ij ÁkFkfedh ntZ dj vU; vkosnuksa dks blh ÁkFkfedh esa lekfgr dj vuqla/kku fd;k tk;A fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa ,d gh oknh }kjk ,d gh ?kVukØe esa ,d gh vkjksfir ds fo:) nwljh ÁkFkfedh ntZ u dh tk;A ¼7½ ;fn ,d gh ?kVukØe esa ?kVukLFky@vkjksfir O;fDr vyx&vyx gSa rFkk ,d gh ekeys esa vuqla/kku laHko ugha gS rks U;k;fgr esa vyx&vyx ÁkFkfedh ntZ dj vuqla/kku fd;k tk;A ¼8½ foRrh; laLFkkuksa }kjk ;kstukc) rjhds ls fd;s x;s vkijkf/kd U;klHkax@Ny@dwVjpuk ftlesa ,d ls vf/kd O;fDr ÁHkkfor@ihfM+r gq, gSa] U;k;fgr esa vyx&vyx ÁkFkfedh ntZ fd;s tk ldrs gSaA ¼9½ ,d gh Ádkj ds vyx&vyx le; esa ?kaVs ?kVukØe esa vyx&vyx ÁkFkfefd;ka ntZ dh tk; ;Fkk fofHkUu LFkyksa ls fofHkUu frfFk;ksa esa] ;k ,d gh frfFk;ksa esa fofHkUu LFkyksa ls pksjh fd;s x;s okguksa dh ?kVukvksa esa ÁkIr vkosnu dks ,d gh lkFk layXu dj ,d gh ÁkFkfedh ntZ dj ?kVuk dk U;wuhdj.k djus dk Á;kl u fd;k tk;A ¼10½ ,d gh ekeys esa nks i{kksa }kjk ,d&nwljs ds fo:) lefiZr vkosnu ij Áfrykse dkaM ntZ dj vuqla/kku djuk] ;|fi nksuksa vkosnu ,d ?kVuk@?kVukØe ls lacaf/kr gks] fof/k lEer ,oa fu;ekuqdwy gSA 7- mi;ZqDr funs'kksa dk v{kj'k% vuqikyu dk nkf;Ro vuqeaMy iqfyl inkf/kdkjh] ÁHkkx fujh{kd ,oa Fkkuk/;{k dh gksxhA 8- mi;qZDr funsZ'kksa dk vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djkus gsrq ftyk iqfyl v/kh{kd vius lHkh v/khuLFkksa dks lqxzkgh djsaxsA os Áfrosnu&2 ,oa vU; Áfrosnu fuxZr djrs le; ns[k ysaxs fd bl vkns'k dk ikyu fd;k x;k gSA vogsyuk dks =qfV ds :Ik esa fpfUgr djrs gq, vuqla/kkudrkZ ij dk;Zokgh djsaxsA {ks=h; egkfujh{kd@mi&egkfujh{kd Hkh {ks= Hkze.k@dk.Mksa dh leh{kk ds nkSjku vkns'k ds vuqikyu dh Hkh leh{kk djsaxsA Ikqfyl egkfuns'kd] fcgkj Kkikad 1531@uhfr fu/kkZj.k fcgkj iqfyl eq[;ky; ¼vijk/k vuqla/kku foHkkx ,oa detksj oxZ ÁHkkx½ fnukad% 13-06-2022 Áfrfyfi& ¼1½ lHkh ÁHkkx ÁHkkjh] iqfyl eq[;ky;] fcgkj dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d fØ;kFkZA ¼2½ lHkh {ks=h; iqfyl egkfujh{kd@iqfyl mi&egkfujh{kd dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d fØ;kFkZA ¼3½ iqfyl mi&egkfujh{kd ¼viŒ½@¼MŒfuŒ½] viŒvuŒfoŒ fcgkj] iVuk dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d fØ;kFkZA ¼4½ lHkh ojh; iqfyl v/kh{kd@iqfyl v/kh{kd ¼jsy lfgr½ dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d fØ;kFkZA** 3. While disposing of this criminal miscellaneous application in the light of the Annexure ‘A’, this court understands that henceforth the guidelines as contained in memo no. 1531 dated 13.06.2022 shall be fully complied with in it’s terms and spirit by the investigating agencies across the State of Bihar. 4. This court, in order to ensure that the guidelines as contained in Annexure ‘A’ is duly given effect to directs as under:— (i) The Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police in Charge of the district(s) shall circulate it among all the police officers of the police station falling within his/their jurisdiction. (ii) The police training center shall in it’s training programme arrange for a special training session to educate the police officers posted in different police stations on the guidelines as per Annexure ‘A’ above. Such special session(s) shall be conducted within three months from today. 5. Any police officer acting contrary to the guidelines as contained in Annexure ‘A’ shall not only be proceeded against departmentally but would also be liable to be punished for committing contempt of this Court. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna is directed to circulate a copy of this order with appropriate instructions to all the authorities to whom the copies of memo no. 1531 dated 13.06.2022 has been endorsed. 6. The application stands disposed of accordingly.