Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 821 (JHR)

Mahadev Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2022-07-08

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashutosh Anand assisted by Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel for the State. 2. In all these cases common questions of law are involved that is why all the cases have been heard together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. In all these cases prayer has been made for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 113 of 2020 dated 21.07.2020, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Koderma. 4. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsels for the petitioners submits that the present F.I.R. has been lodged on the written report dated 20.07.2020 issued by the Forest Range Officer, Koderma and on the basis of same letter the Forest Range Officer, Wild Animal Range, Koderma has submitted an offence report in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma on the basis of which a complaint case bearing C-660/2020 has been registered which is pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma awaiting prosecution report. 5. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submit that admittedly for the same set of occurrence two parallel case, one by way of F.I.R. and second by way of complaint is not permissible in the law. According to them, source has been stated through secret informant but what is secret information has not been disclosed by the informant. They further submit that 22 persons have been made accused in the F.I.R. They further submit that the petitioners are neither owner nor driver of the seized vehicle and they have no concern with the illegal mining of stone. They further submits that in the Indian Forest Act there is provision of power to arrest under section 64 of the Act and enquiry in the light of section 72 of the said Act. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submit that the present F.I.R. is bad in law as it is settled law that for the same set of occurrence two parallel proceedings cannot be allowed. 6. Per contra Mr. Ashutosh Anand learned counsel for the State submits that in the light of section 210 of Cr.P.C. both the cases are required to be amalgamated. 6. Per contra Mr. Ashutosh Anand learned counsel for the State submits that in the light of section 210 of Cr.P.C. both the cases are required to be amalgamated. He tried to justify lodging of two cases and submits that there is no illegality if both the proceedings are allowed to be continued. By way of referring section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., he submits that complaint has been defined in that section of the Cr.P.C. On these grounds, he submits that these petitions are fit to be dismissed. 7. The Court has gone through the contents of F.I.R. and complaint annexed with the petition. Date of both cases are same i.e. 20.07.2020. Looking into the contents of F.I.R. as well as complaint, Court finds that contents of both the cases depicted therein are same. The offence report which is basis of initiation of complaint, it transpires that contents of both the cases are same. 8. In Cr. M.P. No. 2651 of 2020 counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties wherein para 17 it has been stated as under:- “17. That it is further submitted that in paragraph no. 9 of the instant petition, it is an admitted position that there is difference in the charges as alleged in the Complaint Case No. 660/2020 and the Koderma P.S. Case No. 113/2020 and as such both the cases has been instituted against the petitioners. That it is further submitted that Section 3 (A) & (B) of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 could not added in the complaint case due to technical and inadvertence therefore Koderma P.S. Case No. 113/2020 was instituted against all the accused persons.” 9. Looking into the aforesaid paragraph, it is crystal clear that only for adding Section 3 (A) & (B) of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, F.I.R. has been lodged. 10. It is well settled law that for the same set of occurrence if two cases are lodged only the earliest for the information about commission of a cognizable offence are required to be continued. Reference may be made to the judgment in the case of “Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India” reported in (2020) 14 SCC 12 wherein para 30 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “30. Reference may be made to the judgment in the case of “Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India” reported in (2020) 14 SCC 12 wherein para 30 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “30. The fundamental basis on which the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 32 is the filing of multiple FIRs and complaints in various States arising from the same cause of action. The cause of action was founded on a programme which was telecast on R Bharat on 21 April 2020. FIRs and criminal complaints were lodged against the petitioner in the States of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana and Jharkhand besides the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir. The law concerning multiple criminal proceedings on the same cause of action has been analyzed in a judgment of this Court in TT Antony v State of Kerala (TT Antony). Speaking for a two judge Bench, Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri interpreted the provisions of Section 154 and cognate provisions of the CrPC including Section 173 and observed: 20. Under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus, there can be no second FIR and consequently 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. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station 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 CrP.C.” 11. The Court is required to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. 12. Looking into the complaint as well as F.I.R. it transpires that contents of accusations are same. Indian Forest Act provides procedure of law for arrest in the light of section 64 of the Act and further power has been envisaged to investigate under section 72 of the said Act. In view of these provisions, the Forest Officer investigated the matter and thereafter filed offence report before the Court and the Court has registered the said report by order dated 22.07.2020. Thus in the Indian Forest Act procedure is fully prescribed to investigate the case and to arrest under that Act. Accordingly, offence report was presented before the Court. Coming to the F.I.R., it transpires that for the same set of occurrence, F.I.R. has been lodged. It is sell settled that if any subsequent development in the enquiry came that will be taken care of with the first report. In view of judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Others (2013) 5 SCC 762 . 13. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the Court finds that contents of both the case are similar. For the same set of occurrence two proceedings cannot be allowed in the light of judgment in the case of “T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala” reported in the case of (2001) 6 SCC 181 . To allow second F.I.R. to be continued amounts to be abuse of process of law. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 113 of 2020 dated 21.07.2020, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Koderma, are hereby quashed. 14. All these petitions stand allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. Interim orders are vacated.