Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 558 (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; (vijkèk vuqla/ku foHkkx ,oa detksj oxZ izHkkx) vkns'k dkaMksa ds vuqla/ku 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/fu;eksa dh /kjkvksa ds vUrxZr ,d ls T;knk izkFkfedh 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 vkèkkj ij vyx&vyx dbZ izkFkfedh ntZ dh x;h gS] tks fofèklEer ugha gSA 2- fØñ felñ uañ 64578@2021 eqdqy dqekj @@ A.J. 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 lacafèkr 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 izdkj 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 izfØ;k lafgrk esa vijkèk dh izFke bfÙkyk ,oa vuqlaèkku ds lacaèk esa izkIr 'kfDr;ksa ,oa Hkkjrh; lafoèkku ds vuqPNsn&19 ,oa 21 esa ukxfjdksa dks iznÙk ekSfyd vfèkdkjksa esa larqyu cuk jguk vko';d gSA 5- naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 ds vè;k;&12 esa èkkjk&154 ls 176 rFkk fcgkj iqfyl gLrd] 1978 ds vè;k;&8 ,oa 9 esa izFke bfRryk ,oa muds vUos"k.k dh 'kfDr;kWa ,oa izfØ;k iznÙk gSa ftudk v{kj'k% vuqikyu jkT; ds izR;sd iqfyl inkfèkdkjh ds fy, ckè;dkjh gSA 6- vr% izFke bfÙkyk ,oa vuqlaèkku ds lacaèk esa fofèkd izkoèkkuksa 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 izfØ;k lafgrk ds izkoèkku ,oa fcgkj iqfyl gLrd esa fofgr izfØ;k ds v{kj'k% vuqikyu ds lacaèk esa ,d gh ?kVukØe ;k laO;ogkj ds rF;ksa ij izkFkfedh ntZ djus ds fcUnq ij Li"Vrk gsrq fuEufyf[kr funsZ'k fn;s tkrs gSa% i. iqfyl }kjk Nkikekjh ds Øe esa ,d gh ?kVukLFky@?kVukØe@le; esa rRle; ykxw fofHkUu vfèkfu;eksa dh èkkjkvksa ds vUrxZr vijkèk dh lwpuk@tIrh ik;s tkus ij fofHkUu vfèkfu;eksa ds vUrxZr vyx&vyx izkFkfedh ntZ u dj ,d gh izkFkfedh ntZ dj vuqlaèkku fd;k tk;A tc ,d gh ?kVukLFky@?kVukØe@le; esa ?kfVr nks ;k vfèkd vijkèkksa dk laKku ysus okys l{ke U;kf;d izfèkdkj i`Fkd gksa] oSlh fLFkfr esa gh i`Fkd izkFkfedh ntZ dj vuqlaèkku izkjEHk fd;k tk ldrk gSA ii. ,d gh ?kVukØe esa ;k laO;ogkj ds rF;ksa ij ,d ;k vfèkd ihfM+r i{k ds c;ku ij vusd izkFkfedh ntZ ugha tk;saA ;Fkk ,d gh ?kVuk esa t[eh fofHkUu O;fDr;ksa ds vkosnu ij vyx&vyx izkFkfedh ntZ u fd;k tk;A izkIr izFke lwpuk ij ntZ izkFkfedh esa gh i'pkrorhZ lHkh c;ku@vkosnu@rF;ksa dks lekfgr dj vuqlaèkku fd;k tk;A iii. ,d gh ?kVukØe esa ;k laO;ogkj ds rF;ksa ij ,d ;k vfèkd ihfM+r i{k ds c;ku ij vusd izkFkfedh ntZ ugha tk;saA ;Fkk ,d gh ?kVuk esa t[eh fofHkUu O;fDr;ksa ds vkosnu ij vyx&vyx izkFkfedh ntZ u fd;k tk;A izkIr izFke lwpuk ij ntZ izkFkfedh esa gh i'pkrorhZ lHkh c;ku@vkosnu@rF;ksa dks lekfgr dj vuqlaèkku fd;k tk;A iii. ?kVukØe esa nañizñlañ dh èkkjk&154 ds vUrxZr izFke bfÙkyk fjiksZV ntZ gksus ds mijkar vuqlaèkku ds Øe esa izkIr dksbZ Hkh fyf[kr ;k ekSf[kd c;ku ;k vU; rF; ftlls ntZ èkkjkvksa ls vyx vijkèk gksus dh iqf"V gksrh gS rks mDr c;ku@rF; dks nañizñlañ dh èkkjk&161 ,oa 162 ds vUrxZr ntZ djrs gq, ntZ izkFkfedh ds vuqlaèkku esa gh lekfgr fd;k tk;A iv. ntZ dkaM ds vuqlaèkku lekfIr ds mijkar vafre izi=k lefiZr djus ds i'pkr ;fn ,sls rF;@c;ku@vkosnu izkIr gksrs gSa] ftl ij vuqlaèkku djuk vko';d gS rks vyx ls izkFkfedh ntZ u dj] igys ls ntZ izkFkfedh esa gh vxzrj vuqlaèkku gsrq nañizñlañ dh èkkjk&173(8) ds rgr fufgr izkoèkkuksa ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tk;A v. ;fn ntZ dkaM ds vuqlaèkku esa izkFkfedh esa ntZ vfèkfu;e dh èkkjkvksa ls vyx vfèkfu;e ds èkkjkvksa ds vUrxZr vijkèk izdV gksrk gS rks mu èkkjkvksa dks Hkh ntZ izkFkfedh ds vuqlaèkku esa gh lekfgr fd;k tk;] u fd ml vfèkfu;e esa nwljh izkFkfedh ntZ dh tk;A ;Fkk ;fn fdlh O;fDr@vijkèkh ds ikl okgu tk¡p ds Øe esa gfFk;kj cjken gksrk gS rFkk 'kL=k vfèkfu;e ds rgr izkFkfedh ntZ ,oa okgu tIr dj vuqlaèkku ds Øe esa tIr okgu pksjh dk gksus dk rF; mtkxj gksus ij mDr lacaèk esa vyx ls dkaM u ntZ dj Hkkñnñfoñ dh lqlaxr èkkjkvksa esa vuqlaèkku djrs gq, vafre izi=k esa mudk lekos'k fd;k tk;A vi. fdlh ?kVukdze esa izkFkfedh ntZ djus gsrq ,d ls vfèkd izkIr vkosnu ij ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk funsf'kr "the test of sameness of the truth and substance of gravamen of charges." ds fl¼kar ds vkèkkj ij fu.kZ; fy;k tk;A izkIr vkosnu esa ;fn ,d gh ?kVukdze @vkjksiksa bR;kfn dh iqf"V gksrh gS rks izFke vkosnu ij izkFkfedh ntZ dj vU; vkosnuksa dks blh izkFkfedh esa lekfgr dj vuqlaèkku fd;k tk;A fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa ,d gh oknh }kjk ,d gh ?kVukØe esa ,d gh vkjksfir ds fo:¼ nwljh izkFkfedh ntZ u dh tk;A vii. ;fn ,d gh ?kVukØe esa ?kVukLFky@vkjksfir O;fDr vyx&vyx gSa rFkk ,d gh ekeys esa vuqlaèkku laHko ugha gS rks U;k;fgr esa vyx&vyx izkFkfedh ntZ dj vuqlaèkku fd;k tk;A viii. forh; laLFkkuksa }kjk ;kstukc¼ rjhds ls fd;s x;s vkijkfèkd U;klHkax@Ny@dwVjpuk ftlesa ,d ls vfèkd O;fDr izHkkfor@ihfM+r gq, gSa] U;k;fgr esa vyx&vyx izFkfedh ntZ fd;s tk ldrs gSaA ix. ,d gh izdkj ds vyx&vyx le; esa ?kVs ?kVukØe esa vyx&vyx izkFkfefd;k¡ 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 izkIr vkosnu dks ,d gh lkFk layXu dj ,d gh izkFkfedh ntZ dj ?kVuk dk U;wuhdj.k djus dk iz;kl u fd;k tk;A x. ,d gh ekeys esa nks i{kksa }kjk ,d&nwljs ds fo:¼ lefiZr vkosnu ij izfrykse dkaM ntZ dj vuqlaèkku djuk] ;|fi nksuksa vkosnu ,d ?kVuk@?kVukØe ls lacafèkr gks] fofèk lEer ,oa fu;ekuqdwy gSA 7. mi;ZqDr funs'ksak dk v{kj'k% vuqikyu dk nkf;Ro vuqeaMy iqfyl inkfèkdkjh] izHkkx fujh{kd ,oa Fkkukè;{k dh gksxhA 8- mi;qZDr funsZ'kksa dk vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djkus gsrq ftyk iqfyl vèkh{kd vius lHkh vèkhuLFkkas dks lqxzkgh (Sensitize) djsaxsA os izfrosnu&2 ,oa vU; izfrosnu fuxZr djrs le; ns[k ysaxs fd bl vkns'k dk ikyu fd;k x;k gSA vogsyuk dks =kqfV ds :Ik esa fpfUgr djrs gq, vuqlaèkkudrkZ ij dk;Zokgh djsaxsA {ks=kh; egkfujh{kd@mi&egkfujh{kd Hkh {ks=k 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 fuèkkZj.k fcgkj iqfyl eq[;ky; (vijkèk vuqlaèkku foHkkx ,oa detksj oxZ izHkkx) fnukad& 13@06@2022 izfrfyfi&1. lHkh izHkkx izHkkjh] iqfyl eq[;ky;] fcgkj dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d fØ;kFkZA 2. lHkh {ks=kh; iqfyl egkfujh{kd@iqfyl mi&egkfujh{kd dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d fØ;kFkZA 3 iqfyl mi&egkfujh{kd(viñ)@(Mñfuñ)] viñvuqñfoñ fcgkj] iVuk dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d fØ;kFkZA 4 lHkh ojh; iqfyl vèkh{kd@iqfyl vèkh{kd (jsy lfgr) 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. 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.