JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. This writ petition has been filed by 3 sitting MLAs of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly. They have questioned registration of zero FIR by the officer-in-charge of Argora PS at Ranchi on the complaint of the respondent no. 4 made on 31st July 2022 and transmission thereof to Panchla PS within the district of Howrah (Gramin) in the State of West Bengal. The main plank of the petitioners is Kotwali PS Case No. 159 of 2021 which was also registered on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent no. 4 on 22nd July 2021 and is still pending investigation. According to the petitioners, the registration of zero FIR dated 31st July 2022 is illegal, without authority of law and tantamounts to second FIR corresponding to Kotwali PS Case No. 159 of 2021. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have made the following prayers: “(i) issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash/set aside the illegal and arbitrary registration of complaint dated 31.07.2022 (part of Annexure-1) as Zero FIR and consequential transfer of the same being mala fide, arbitrary and void ab initio, and/or (ii) issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing/set aside the Transfer of the Complaint/ZERO FIR dated 31.07.2022 being Panchla PS. Case No. 276/2022 dated 31.07.2022 (Annexure-1) u/s 420, 120B, 171(E), 34, 468, 471, 201 and 467 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sections 7, 11, 12, 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and/or (iii) issue or pass any writ, direction or order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Briefly stated, on 22nd July 2021, the respondent no. 4 who is a sitting MLA from Bermo constituency in the State of Jharkhand provided information to the officer-in-charge of Kotwali PS at Ranchi that in furtherance of a conspiracy to topple the JMM-RJD-Congress coalition government some influential people and financers have arrived at Ranchi, they are staying in different hotels and are trying to allure MLAs. 4 who is a sitting MLA from Bermo constituency in the State of Jharkhand provided information to the officer-in-charge of Kotwali PS at Ranchi that in furtherance of a conspiracy to topple the JMM-RJD-Congress coalition government some influential people and financers have arrived at Ranchi, they are staying in different hotels and are trying to allure MLAs. On the basis of his written complaint, Kotwali PS Case No. 159 of 2021 was registered on 22nd July 2021 under sections 419, 420, 124-A, 120-B read with section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, sections 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 171-B of the Representation of the Peoples Act. On 30th July 2022, the respondent no. 4 gave a similar complaint to Argora PS again raising an apprehension that some political persons are trying to topple the government of the day. A sanha entry was made at 03 : 00 PM on 30th July 2022 in Argora PS at Ranchi in which the officer-in-charge of Argora PS has made a remark that he himself would make enquiry into the allegations in the said complaint. 4. The sanha entry dated 30th July 2022 which appears at serial no. 21 in the Station Diary has been made in the following words: At this hour, Kumar Jaimangal @ Anup Singh, Bermo MLA (Jharkhand) has submitted an application stating that some political persons of Jharkhand are trying to topple the popular and majority Government of Jharkhand by alluring people in different ways. A sanha entry has been made regarding this information. I shall myself conduct the enquiry in this regard. [English Translation] 5. On 31st July 2022, the respondent no. 4 gave another complaint to Argora PS at Ranchi raising a similar apprehension and making allegations against the petitioners on the basis of which zero FIR under sections 420, 124-A, 120-B read with section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, section 171-B of the Representation of the Peoples Act and section 8/9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been registered. 6. Before that, at about 05 : 05 PM on 30th July 2022 the officer-in-charge of Panchla PS had made General Diary Entry of the following information: “By this time myself received information from district control room that one black colour Fortuner car vide Reg. 6. Before that, at about 05 : 05 PM on 30th July 2022 the officer-in-charge of Panchla PS had made General Diary Entry of the following information: “By this time myself received information from district control room that one black colour Fortuner car vide Reg. No. JH09-AQ-0016 was coming from Kolkata side towards Kolaghat availing NH-16 and there was huge amount of illegal money. To work out such information myself along with PSI Subhajit Sarkar, C/1384 Gurucharan Hasda, C/0265 Rakesh Mahato and C/1282 Ratindranath Soren (all RAF) proceeded near Ranihati on NH-16 under PS Panchla informing my superior.” 7. Soon thereafter, a Fortuner car bearing Reg. No. JH09-AQ-0016 moving towards Kolaghat was intercepted at about 05 : 40 PM and during search huge amount of cash was found in a bag lying in the said vehicle. The total amount of cash in the bag was Rs. 49,98,300/- which was seized and five persons including the present petitioners who were on board the said vehicle were detained. Next day, around 12 : 04 PM, the complaint of the respondent no. 4 vide zero FIR dated 31st July 2022 was transmitted through e-mail to the officer-in-charge of Panchla PS who after informing his superior officers has lodged Panchla PS Case No. 276 of 2022 under sections 420, 120-B, 171-E/34 of the Penal Code, 1860 read with section 8/9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the counter-affidavit, the State of West Bengal which is the respondent no. 2 has provided details of GD Entries made before and after the registration of Panchla PS Case No. 276 of 2022 dated 31st July 2022. According to the GD Entries made at Panchla PS, the petitioners who could not provide any satisfactory explanation for possession of huge amount of cash were arrested around 12.50 PM and, on the same day, an information was received at Panchla PS at around 01 : 30 PM that investigation of the case has been taken over by the CID of West Bengal. The respondent no. The respondent no. 2 has taken a stand that the steps taken by the CID of West Bengal being a separate investigating agency following the statutory procedures from arrest of the MLAs and their production before the competent Court do not violate any of the fundamental, constitutional or legal rights of the petitioners and even otherwise also any defect or illegality in the investigation would have no bearing on competence for taking cognizance of the offence. This is also pleaded that the Income Tax Department has been informed about the incident through letter dated 8th September 2022 and the seized amount has been deposited in the Howrah Maidan Branch of the State Bank of India on 20th August 2022. 8. The State of West Bengal has raised an objection to jurisdiction of the High Court of Jharkhand to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have already submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta. Similarly, the State of Jharkhand has also taken objection to maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that no interference is required in the matter while the matter is under investigation by the West Bengal police. This is the stand of the State of Jharkhand that zero FIR was registered at Argora PS because the crime was committed outside the local area of the police station and Panchla PS Case No. 276 of 2022 was lodged after receipt of zero FIR, whereafter the petitioners were arrested. It is stated that the petitioners have approached the High Court at Calcutta in W.P.A. No. 17739 of 2022 for transfer of investigation in Panchla PS Case No. 276 of 2022 dated 31st July 2022 to any other independent investigating agency and the said petition has been dismissed by an order dated 4th August 2022. This order was taken in appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta vide MAT No. 1254 of 2022 and this petition has been dismissed as withdrawn on 10th November 2022. Not only that, the petitioners have filed C.R.M. (DB) No. 2782 of 2022 under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which by an order dated 17th August 2022 they have been granted bail with a condition that they shall appear before the Court as and when their presence is required. Not only that, the petitioners have filed C.R.M. (DB) No. 2782 of 2022 under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which by an order dated 17th August 2022 they have been granted bail with a condition that they shall appear before the Court as and when their presence is required. Therefore, it is contended that the present writ petition is barred in law by res judicata, estoppel and analogous principles thereof. 9. At the outset, I may indicate that by an order dated 14th October 2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court the West Bengal police was restrained from filing the charge-sheet in Panchla PS Case No. 276 of 2022. This order was challenged by the respondent no. 4 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 11186 of 2022 which has been dismissed by an order dated 1st December 2022. However, the question of maintainability of the writ petition and other questions have been left open to be decided by this Court. 10. The order dated 1st December 2022 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 11186 of 2022 titled “Kumar Jaimangal @ Anup Singh v. The State of Jharkhand” is reproduced as hereinbelow: “Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the lis. He submits that the Calcutta High Court has rejected the plea to that effect. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent(s), submits that the view taken by the Calcutta High Court is erroneous and it is only the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, which has the jurisdiction to entertain the issue. The High Court is seized of the matter and the matter is kept for hearing today. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, all the questions including the maintainability can be addressed before the High Court, which will be taken into consideration by the High Court in accordance with law. Needless to state that since the matter is listed today before the High Court, we request the High Court to decide the said issue at the earliest. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 11. Needless to state that since the matter is listed today before the High Court, we request the High Court to decide the said issue at the earliest. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 11. The issue raised by the petitioners which pertains to registration of zero FIR whether or not the same shall tantamount to second FIR has not been decided in the proceedings before the High Court of Calcutta. A prayer seeking transfer of investigation to any independent investigating agency is adjudicated having regard to apprehension of the accused of a biased investigator or investigation and any discussion thereon even though touching upon the jurisdictional issue shall not be conclusive and binding upon the parties. A prayer for bail or transfer of the investigation is necessarily interlocutory in nature and, as shall be the effect of every interlocutory order, any observation or even a finding except a finding of fact rendered by the High Court of Calcutta shall not attract the principle of issue estoppel. This principle which is also known as “cause of action estoppel” can be applied where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent Court on a former occasion and a finding has been rendered by the Court on that issue of fact. Simply put, if with respect to an offence arising out of a transaction the accused was tried and acquitted the accused cannot be put to another trial with respect to the offence said to have arisen out of the same transaction where the Court may arrive at a different conclusion - it is different from doubt jeopardy. While so, the petitioners cannot be estopped per rem judicatam and, moreover, the plea of estoppel per rem judicatam is a shield rather than a sword. 12. The jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised not only for enforcement of fundamental rights but also for enforcement of any legal right. The phraseology used in Article 226 is so comprehensive that it confers very wide powers on the High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs to enable the High Courts to interfere in any matter wherever injustice has been done. The phraseology used in Article 226 is so comprehensive that it confers very wide powers on the High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs to enable the High Courts to interfere in any matter wherever injustice has been done. In “Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd.”, Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council : (1970) 1 SCC 582 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a party claiming to be aggrieved by the action of a public body or authority on the plea that the action is unlawful, high handed, arbitrary or unjust is entitled to a hearing of the petition on merits. This power under Article 226 of the Constitution is exercised not necessarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court but extends to other territories where also the cause of action has arisen. A cause of action as understood in its ordinary parlance is relevant for exercise of jurisdiction under Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In “Navinchandra N. Majithia”, Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra : (2000) 7 SCC 640 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the amendment in Article 226 of the Constitution by inserting Clause (2) is aimed at widening the width of the area for reaching the writs issued by the different High Courts. When such is the legislative intention, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution must be expanded in favor of the litigants. 13. This does not evince any doubt that the High Courts have ample powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash a First Information Report. This is not correct to contend that in no situation an aggrieved person can approach the Court against the action of the police which has unfettered power to investigate all cases where a cognizable offence has been committed. An accused can invoke the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with a grievance that the power exercised by the police is unauthorised and not sanctioned in law, and in appropriate cases the High Court can issue appropriate writ provided there are materials to support the allegations. 14. An accused can invoke the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with a grievance that the power exercised by the police is unauthorised and not sanctioned in law, and in appropriate cases the High Court can issue appropriate writ provided there are materials to support the allegations. 14. In “T.T. Anthony”, T.T. Anthony v. State of Kerala : (2001) 6 SCC 181 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the police transgress its statutory power of investigation the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court in an appropriate case can interdict the investigation to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the plenary power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence is not unlimited rather subject to certain well-recognized limitations. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.” 16. The petitioners are the permanent resident of the State of Jharkhand and the respondent no. 4 is also a sitting MLA of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly. The complaints dated 30th and 31st July 2022 both have been given by the respondent no. 4 to the officer-in-charge of Argora PS at Ranchi. Even according to the informations recorded in Panchla PS Case No. 276 of 2022, the cause of action has arisen within the State of Jharkhand. In column no. 5 of Panchla FIR, the place of occurrence is shown near Dhori in the district of Bokaro within the State of Jharkhand. Significantly, it is a trite law that a cause of action which gives jurisdiction to the Court is ascertained on the basis of the statements in plaint/complaint, irrespective of its truthfulness or falsity. In “Shanti Devi” Shanti Devi v. Union of India : (2020) 10 SCC 766 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. 17. The First Information Report dated 31st July 2022 which has been registered at Panchla PS runs as follows: “IN THE COURT OF LD C.J.M. AT HOWRAH Ref : - Panchla ps case no : -276/22. Dt : -31/07/22. U/s : - 420/120B/171(E)/34 IPC, r/w 8/9 P.C. Act. Adding section-7/11/12 P.C. Act. FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (Under section-154 Cr. P.C.) 1. Dist-Howrah, PS-Panchla, year-2022, FIR NO-276/22, Dt : -31/07/22. 2.(i) Act-IPC, Section-420/120B/171(E)/34, (iv) other Acts & section-8/9 P.C. Act. 3.(a) Date From-30/07/22, (b) Information received at P.S. Date-31/07/22, Time-12.13 hrs. Dt : -31/07/22. U/s : - 420/120B/171(E)/34 IPC, r/w 8/9 P.C. Act. Adding section-7/11/12 P.C. Act. FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (Under section-154 Cr. P.C.) 1. Dist-Howrah, PS-Panchla, year-2022, FIR NO-276/22, Dt : -31/07/22. 2.(i) Act-IPC, Section-420/120B/171(E)/34, (iv) other Acts & section-8/9 P.C. Act. 3.(a) Date From-30/07/22, (b) Information received at P.S. Date-31/07/22, Time-12.13 hrs. (c) General Diary Reference : Entry No (s)-2424, Time-12.13 hrs. 4. Type of information : written/oral. 5. Place of occurrence : (a) Direction and Distance from P.S-XX. (b) Address-Near Dhori, Bokaro, Jharkhand. 6. Complaint/Informant: – (a) Name-Kumar Jaimangal, (Arup singh) MLA Bermo, Jharkhand. (f) Occupation-MLA Barmo, Jharkhand. (g) Address-Dhori, Bokaro, Jharkhand. 7. Details of known/suspected/unknown accused with full particulars (Attach separate sheet, if necessary): – 1. Shri Irfan Ansari, MLA Jamtara. (2) Rajish Kachhap, MLA. (3) Shri Bixal Kongari MLA and others. 9. Particulars of properties stolen/involved (Attach separate sheet, if necessary)- 10 (Ten) Crores per MLA. 12. FIR Contents (Attach separate sheets, if required) : - The wated complaint of the complainant is attached/reproduced below. 13. Action taken since the above report reveals commission of offence(s) as mentioned at item no. 2 registered the case and took up investigation/directed-As per kind order Shri Goutam Chattopadhyay Dy SP DEB, HRD to take up investigation/Refused investigation/transferred to P.S-x on point of jurisdiction. FIR read over to the complainant/informant, admitted to be correctly recorded and a copy given to the complainant/information free of cost. sd/- Illigible signature of the officer-in-charge. 31/07/22 Police station. Officer in chargeName-Jyotirmoy Mondal Panchla P.S.Rank-SI of police. Howrah (Rural) Dist.Dt : 31/07/2022 Started Panchla PS case no-276/22, dt-31/7/22, u/s-420/120B/171(E) 34 IPC. & 8/9 P.C. Act. Sd/- Illigible. 31/07/22 Received on 12.13 hrs & started Panchla PS case no-276/22, dt-31/07/22, u/s-420/120/171(E)/34 IPC & 8/9 P.C. Act. Sd/- Illigible (SI). 31/07/22. Kumar Jaimangal (Anup Singh) MLA, (Bermo) Secretary-INTUC (National) President: Indian National Mineworkers' Federation, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Union (Central) Sr. Vice President INTUC (Jharkhand) Regional Secretary Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Union CCL Regional Committee To The O.C. Argora, Ranchi. I, SO MLA of Jharkhand, would like to lodge a complaint regarding offer of gratification being offered to me to topple the present government of JMM and congress which came to power with a thumping majority, Shri Irfan Ansari, MLA Jamtara, Shri Rakesh Kachhap, MLA and Shri Bixal Kongari, MLA are calling me to Kolkata and offering me money and they are promising 10 crores per MLA. Shri Irfan Ansari and Rajesh Kachchap wants me to come to Kolkata and then take me to Guwahati were according to him he will make me meet Shri Himanta Biswa Sarma who will give me assurance of definite ministerial berth apart from the money. Irfan Ansari has told me that he has already been promised Health Ministry in the new government. He also told me that he shall be reaching Kolkata yesterday afternoon. He said that he has already got money transferred to his person and once I reach Gowahati and promise it in front of Shri Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma. He assured me that Shri Sarma is doing it with the blessings of top shots of BJP political party sitting in Delhi. I do not want to be part of this unconstitutional, illegal and downright criminal activity and hence informing you that you please take action against them who are stationed in Kolkata with token amount and pressuring me to come to Kolkata and accompany them to Guwahati. Since I do not want to a part of such a criminal offence and indulge in such unethical activity which breaks the constitutional structure of the country, would request you to take action as per section 7(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act and 120B IPC and bring this kind of criminal activity to stop which strikes at the very heart of the democracy and book the persons as per the provision of law for influencing me for an illegal act in active collusion with others who are operating from behind to topple the present Govt of Jharkhand with a dangerous design and adopting all sorts of illegal ways by influencing their position being in capacity of public servants. Kumar Jaimangal (Anup Singh) Sd/- Illigible” 18. The contention of the respondents that the High Court at Calcutta shall only have jurisdiction in the matter is without any substance. There is no law of universal application to the effect that merely because a person was arrested at a particular place the Court within the local jurisdiction of which the person was arrested shall only have jurisdiction. The contention of the respondents that the High Court at Calcutta shall only have jurisdiction in the matter is without any substance. There is no law of universal application to the effect that merely because a person was arrested at a particular place the Court within the local jurisdiction of which the person was arrested shall only have jurisdiction. For the present, I do not intend to delve further into this issue and suffice would be to say that the legal recourse by the petitioners in the Courts at Kolkata during the transitory period shall not divest this Court of the jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. Rather, the materials on record clearly establish that the High Court of Jharkhand shall have jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. A veiled suggestion has been made in the counter-affidavit filed by the State of West Bengal that the case registered at Panchla is exclusively triable by the Court of Special Judge. It is stated that the matter is pending in the Court of Special Judge, West Bengal (MP & MLAs Cases) at Bidhannagar, North, 24 Pargana (PGN) falling under the jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta. While this is true that the information provided by the respondent no. 4 on 31st July 2022 brings the case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions but the situation shall remain the same here provided a charge-sheet is filed also against the petitioners in Kotwali PS Case No. 159 of 2021. The respondents seem to have confused or misunderstood the distinction between quashment and transfer of the FIR. The petitioners are not seeking transfer of Panchla PS Case No. 276 of 2022 where different considerations, such as, convenience of the parties and witnesses would arise and the issue of territorial jurisdiction shall not be looked into. Mere arrest of the petitioners or any other subsequent proceeding taken out by Panchla PS would not change the nature of crime suspected in Kotwali PS Case No. 159 of 2021. Mere arrest of the petitioners or any other subsequent proceeding taken out by Panchla PS would not change the nature of crime suspected in Kotwali PS Case No. 159 of 2021. Several judgments have been cited on behalf of the rival parties but nothing more is required to be said except that this Court certainly has jurisdiction to examine, whether registration of zero FIR is legal or illegal, whether or not the same is barred in law, and whether a second FIR could have been registered at Argora PS on the basis of the complaint dated 31st July 2022. Therefore, I am of the definite opinion that the writ petition in the present form is maintainable and the High Court of Jharkhand has jurisdiction to deal with the subject-matter. 19. For a better appreciation of the present controversy, it is necessary to look into the allegations made in both the complaints given by the respondent no. 4 to the police. 20. The English translation of complaint dated 22nd July 2021 is reproduced as under: To, Dated 21st July 2021 Officer In-charge Kotwali, Ranchi Subject : Regarding conspiracy to disestablish the Government. Sir, I, Kumar Jaimangal @ Anup Singh (MLA Bermo), son of late Rajendra Prasad Singh, address : 2, Circular Road, Ranchi respectfully gives this information and make you aware that news regarding disestablishing the JMM-Congress-RJD coalition Government has been infiltrating since last several months. There have been attempts to malign the image of several MLAs and in this connection I have received information which is quite surprising. The information is that some persons from different parts have come and are camping at Ranchi to give effect to the political conspiracy and I have received information about large transactions through hawala. In this connection, I have received information that talk regarding payment of money is going on for purchase of the MLAs of the Ruling party so that some MLAs defect on allurement and the Government is brought down. I have also received information that some very influential persons and financers are staying in different hotels and efforts are being made to contact the MLAs so as to allure them and the conspiracy to bring down the Government is given effect to. Please take action on the above information. Sd/- Jaimangal 22/7/2021 21. I have also received information that some very influential persons and financers are staying in different hotels and efforts are being made to contact the MLAs so as to allure them and the conspiracy to bring down the Government is given effect to. Please take action on the above information. Sd/- Jaimangal 22/7/2021 21. The complaint dated 31st July 2022 on the basis of which zero FIR has been registered at Argora PS reads as under: “Kumar JaymangalAt & PO DHORI-825102 MLA (Bermo)Distt. Bokaro (Jharkhand) Secretary-INTUC (National)Kolkata +919903253600 President:Bermo (O) 222221 Indian National Mineworkers' Federation,9431164691, 7004798080 Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Union (Central)E-mail kumarjaimangalbermo@gmail.com Sr. Vice President INTUC (Jharkhand) Regional Secretary Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Union CCL Regional Committee Date 31.7.2022 To, The OC, Argora, Ranchi I so MLA of Jharkhand, would like to lodge a complaint regarding offer of gratification, being offered to me to topple the present government of JMM and Congress which came to power with a thumping majority. Shri Irfan Ansari, MLA Jamtara, Shri Rajesh Kachhap, MLA and Shri Bixal Kongari, MLA are calling me to Kolkata and offering me money and they are promising 10 crores per MLA. Shri Irfan Ansari and Rajesh Kachchap wants me to come to Kolkata and then take me to Guwahati where according to him he will make me meet Shri Himanta Biswa Sarma who will give me assurance of a definite ministerial berth apart from the money. Irfan Ansari has told me that he has already been promised Health ministry in the new government. He also told me that he shall be reaching Kolkata yesterday afternoon. He said that he has already got money transferred to his persons and once I reach Guwahati and promise it in front of Shri Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma. He assured me that Shri Sarma is doing it with the blessings of top shots of BJP political party sitting in Delhi. I do not want to be part of this unconstitutional, illegal and downright criminal activity and hence informing you that you please take action against them who are stationed in Kolkata with token amount and pressurising me to come to Kolkata and accompany them to Guwahati. I do not want to be part of this unconstitutional, illegal and downright criminal activity and hence informing you that you please take action against them who are stationed in Kolkata with token amount and pressurising me to come to Kolkata and accompany them to Guwahati. Since I do not want to a part of such a criminal offence and indulge in such unethical activity which breaks the constitutional structure of the country, would request you to take action as per section 7(C) of Prevention of Corruption Act and 120B IPC and bring this kind of criminal activity to stop which strikes at the very heart of the democracy and book the persons as per the provisions of law for influencing me for an illegal act in active collusion with others who are operating from behind to topple the present Govt of Jharkhand with a dangerous design and adopting all sorts of illegal ways by influencing their position being in capacity of Public Servants. Sd/- Kumar Jaimangal.(Anup Singh)” 22. The gist of allegations in Kotwali PS Case No. 159 of 2021 and Argora PS Case No. 000 of 2022 is a criminal conspiracy hatched by unknown persons to topple the government. Besides other allied offences, the offence of criminal conspiracy as defined under section 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 is the matter still under investigation in Kotwali PS Case No. 159 of 2021. In a criminal conspiracy, there may be several conspirators who would play different roles to achieve the common purpose. A conspiracy is a continuing offence which continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice of necessity, Damodar v. State of Rajasthan : (2004) 12 SCC 336 . According to the respondent no. 4, a conspiracy was hatched to topple the popular coalition government but the first FIR does not disclose name of the conspirators. The complaint made by the respondent no. 4 on 30th July 2022 is also based on whispers in the corridor that attempts are being made to topple the present day government by alluring MLAs. However, in the complaint dated 31st July 2022 the respondent no. 4 has made allegations against the petitioners. According to the respondent no. 4 the petitioners were promised money and assurance of Ministerial berths in furtherance of the conspiracy to topple the government. However, in the complaint dated 31st July 2022 the respondent no. 4 has made allegations against the petitioners. According to the respondent no. 4 the petitioners were promised money and assurance of Ministerial berths in furtherance of the conspiracy to topple the government. So, the gist of both the complaints remains the same - hatching conspiracy to topple the government. In “S. Swamirathnam”, S. Swamirathnam v. State of Madras : AIR 1957 SC 340 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that a single conspiracy may spread over several years and the fact that in course of years others joined the conspiracy or that several incidents took place in pursuance of the conspiracy would not change the nature of the conspiracy nor would split up a single conspiracy into several conspiracies. The genesis of the development of law on this subject is found in “Babulal Chaukhani”, Babulal Chaukhani v. King Emperor : (1937-38) 65 IA 158 : AIR 1938 PC 130 . Babulal Chaukhani had extensive business interests including of Bharat Lakshmi Cinema at Calcutta. He was convicted of theft of electricity under section 39 of the Electricity Act, 1910 and sentenced to fine and imprisonment and, on appeal, his conviction by the Magistrate for conspiracy was quashed by the High Court - second appellant's conviction for aiding and abetting Babulal Chaukhani was also quashed. The issue debated before the Privy Council was whether the incidences of separate thefts could be treated as forming part of the same transaction as being overt acts done in pursuance of a conspiracy. Speaking for the Board of Privy Council, Lord Wright has rendered an opinion that the overt acts committed in pursuance of conspiracy to commit offences are committed in course of the same transaction. The law relating to enquiry and trial for an offence of criminal conspiracy has been further delineated in “Banwari Lal Jhunjhunwala”, Banwari Lal Jhunjhunwala v. Union of India : AIR 1963 SC 1620 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a Court trying an accused for an offence of conspiracy is competent to try him for all offences committed in pursuance of that conspiracy irrespective of the fact that any or all the other offences were not committed within its territorial jurisdiction. 23. Pertinently, this is not a case projected by the respondent no. 23. Pertinently, this is not a case projected by the respondent no. 4 that such separate and distinct offences have been committed as part of a criminal conspiracy which requires registration of separate FIRs, and separate trials. Given the nature of conspiracy, the conclusion may be different where defalcation of public money has taken place through separate transactions over a period of time but that kind of cases shall be dealt with on different considerations and on their peculiar facts. According to the respondent no. 4, the evil design is to topple the government by alluring the MLAs with money and Ministerial births. The first complaint made by the respondent no. 4 has also raised a similar apprehension - influential persons and financers have arrived at Ranchi. Now the law is very clear that the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by the officer-in-charge of the police station provides the basis for investigation which ends with submission of a report under section 169/170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and forwarding of the police report under section 173. It may so happen that while the investigation in the case has been set in motion the police receive further accusation(s) about the occurrence but all such informations given orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation shall be the statements falling under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This also must be remembered that a First Information Report is not an encyclopedia which contains commission of all the offences and involvement of all the accused persons who have or might have participated in the occurrence. In the complaint dated 31st July 2022 which has been converted into zero FIR, the respondent no. 4 has named the petitioners who were trying to allure him. This statement of the respondent no. 4 is also in relation to a conspiracy to topple the government. The investigation in Kotwali PS Case No. 159 of 2021 dated 22nd July 2021 is still continuing and a report under section 169/170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been laid in the Court. In course of the investigation, few persons were arrested and their mobile phones, pen-drive and cloths were seized by the police. The apprehended persons are residents in the districts of Ranchi and Bokaro within the State of Jharkhand. In course of the investigation, few persons were arrested and their mobile phones, pen-drive and cloths were seized by the police. The apprehended persons are residents in the districts of Ranchi and Bokaro within the State of Jharkhand. Now this admits no doubt that the statements dated 30th and 31st July 2022 made by the respondent no. 4 to the officer-in-charge of Argora PS are his statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - whether or not the prohibition under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply is a matter for trial. Even any further information received by the investigating officer after filing of the charge-sheet regarding one or more transactions cannot justify lodging of second FIR and all that the investigating officer can do is to seek permission of the Court under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to conduct further investigation. In “Ratan Singh” State of M.P v. Ratan Singh : (2020) 12 SCC 630 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of section 154 and it is absurd or ridiculous to call subsequent information as second FIR. 24. The judgments in “Babubhai”, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat : (2010) 12 SCC 254 and “Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah”, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI : (2013) 6 SCC 348 have been relied upon by both the parties to substantiate their rival stands. Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate General-II has laid great emphasis on “close proximity of time” factor to justify registration of separate FIRs in the present case. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that there is no “sameness” in both the FIRs, the accused persons are different, the place of occurrence is different and there was no proximity of time and space so as to take the second FIR within the sweep of first FIR. In “Babubhai”,(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed the view that second FIR was liable to be quashed as the allegations related to the same incident and had occurred in close proximity of time, even though they were in two parts. Undoubtedly, a transaction may happen in different parts with intervals of time between two offending acts but separate FIRs cannot be registered for each offending acts. Undoubtedly, a transaction may happen in different parts with intervals of time between two offending acts but separate FIRs cannot be registered for each offending acts. The law as delineated in the Code of Criminal Procedure does not sanction registration of second FIR even where incidents have taken place in two or more parts. The expression “live link”, “live nexus” and “close proximity of time” have been used in the context of continuity in the offending acts/actions. The provision of law under which two FIRs are lodged is not the determinative factor to decide whether second FIR is permissible or not. Similarly, the name and number of the accused in both FIRs are not relevant considerations in cases of criminal conspiracy. To test the legality of lodging of second FIR, what is relevant to examine is nature of the crime suspected in first FIR and whether the offence alleged in second FIR is part of or consequence of the crime suspected in the former FIR. The test of “sameness” is not decided by counting the accused or counts of the crime alleged in both the FIRs. 25. In “Babubhai”,(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has succinctly discussed the scheme under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and came to the following conclusion: “21.……. the court has 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… ….” 26. In “Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah” ,(supra) the Central Bureau of Investigation had lodged a First Information Report in connection to two encounter killings. A writ petition was filed to seek quashing of second FIR, after filing of charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet in first FIR and a charge-sheet in second FIR. It was contended on behalf of the CBI that a conspiracy to kill Tulsiram Prajapati (second FIR) was not in existence when Sohrabuddin was killed and it was only when the accused persons feared of Tulsiram Prajapati being a threat to them who would have spilled the beans being a material witness in the first conspiracy, another conspiracy was hatched to murder him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that second FIR was clearly impermissible as killing of Tulsiram Prajapati was part of the same conspiracy. Therefore, the nature of the crime committed shall become important and, therefore, no definite time-frame can be conceived to decide whether the two incidents had happened in close proximity of time. Recently, in “Krishna Lal Chawla” Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of U.P : (2021) 5 SCC 435 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction a second complaint is not only impermissible but would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 27. Another important decision is “C. Muniappan” C. Muniappan v. State of T.N : (2010) 9 SCC 567 where a charge-sheet was laid clubbing together different offences in respect of two incidents of bus burning. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the “consequence test” to hold that a second FIR would be clearly impermissible in law. It has been held that if an offence forming part of the second FIR arises as a consequence of the offence alleged in the first FIR then the offences covered by both the FIRs are the same and second FIR shall have to be treated as the part of first FIR. The facts of the case in brief are that a First Information Report was lodged at about 01 : 30 PM regarding the incident involving the town buses. Soon thereafter, at about 03 : 30 PM, second FIR was lodged under sections 147/148/149/436 and section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sections 3/4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. In this FIR, a general statement was made that some persons shouting slogans surrounded the bus and broke down the windowpanes - C. Muniappan was not named in the FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborating upon impermissibility of registration of two FIRs has observed that merely because two separate complaints have been lodged does not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed. 28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborating upon impermissibility of registration of two FIRs has observed that merely because two separate complaints have been lodged does not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed. 28. As the story has unfolded in the present case, perhaps I am not required to look beyond what has been held in the aforementioned cases to hold that registration of zero FIR at Argora PS vide Argora PS Case No. 000 of 2022 dated 31st July 2022 is illegal. 29. The next issue debated before this Court was jurisdiction of Panchla police to carry on investigation in the matter. The question of territorial jurisdiction in a civil case is different from a criminal case. The question of territorial jurisdiction of a criminal Court is a matter of substance and not mere procedure. The question of applicability of the provisions under sections 178 to 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an issue which has to be addressed at the first instance when a doubt arises as to jurisdiction of two Courts to continue with the enquiries and trial of a case. 30. Sections 177, 178 and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are extracted below: 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. – Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 178. Place of inquiry or trial. – (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues. – 31. When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. 32. 179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues. – 31. When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. 32. The language of the Code (Criminal Procedure Code, 1898) is conclusive and must be construed according to the ordinary principles so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the language used. The Privy Council has observed that in the case of an ambiguity the meaning which is more in accord with justice and convenience must be preferred but, in general, the words used read in their context must prevail. In a “19-word” sentence, the gist of the jurisdiction of the criminal Courts in enquiries and trials has been incorporated under section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides that “every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it is committed”. The language of section 177 is clear and unambiguous and leaves nothing in the realm of speculation, what ordinarily shall be the place for enquiry and trial of an offence. The expression “shall ordinarily” signifies the clear and definite intention of the legislature to empower only the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence has been committed. The provisions under section 178 to 181 in the Code of Criminal Procedure carves out exception to the general rule as incorporated under section 177. The justification put forth by the respondents for registration of Panchla PS Case No. 276 of 2022 with reference to section 156(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure carries no substance. The seizure of cash found in the vehicle by the Panchla police which did not lodge the case suspecting commission of a crime is thus not a relevant fact in the present case. The question which really has to be determined is whether it was an act committed in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy hatched at Ranchi/Bokaro sometime in the year 2021 within the State of Jharkhand. The answer comes in “affirmative” and while so it must be held that transmission of zero FIR to Panchla PS was illegal. 33. The question which really has to be determined is whether it was an act committed in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy hatched at Ranchi/Bokaro sometime in the year 2021 within the State of Jharkhand. The answer comes in “affirmative” and while so it must be held that transmission of zero FIR to Panchla PS was illegal. 33. The respondents have made a concerted effort to refute the allegation of mala fides on the ground that in this case malice has neither been alleged nor been proved. No doubt the normal rule is that there should be sufficient and cogent pleadings making out a prima facie case wherever allegation of mala fides has been made. However, there is another proposition in law of equal importance that wherever any action has been challenged on the ground that it was without authority or without complying with the statutory requirements such an action or order is held actuated with malice in law. So, where an order suffers from malice in law there is no requirement of any specific averment or strict proof thereof, as such an order would be per se illegal. The expressions “legal malice” or “malice in law” mean something done without lawful excuse, that is to say, it is an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite - in some cases, it may be a deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others. In “Goverdhanlal Pitti”, State of A.P. v. Goverdhanlal Pitti : (2003) 4 SCC 739 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the legal malice on the part of the State should be understood to mean that the action of the State is not taken bona fide. Even in the case of exercise of discretionary powers it is generally immaterial whether its depository was acting in good faith or bad faith. The contention that this Court need not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the officer-in-charge of Argora PS has no warrant in law and must be dismissed just by recalling “Khudiram Das”, Khudiram Das v. State of W.B : (1975) 2 SCC 81 , that in a government of laws there is nothing like unfettered discretion immune from judicial reviewability. Perhaps what Viscount Haldane L.C., Shearer v. Shields : [1914] A.C. 808 spoke about malice in law is the crux of the arguments addressed to this Court to challenge the actions of the officer-in-charge of Argora PS in registering zero FIR and transmission thereof to the Panchla police. 34. The Lord Chancellor has rendered the following opinion: “A person who inflicts an injury upon another person in contravention of the law is not allowed to say that he did so with an innocent mind; he is taken to know the law, and he must act within the law. He may, therefore, be guilty of malice in law, although, so far as the state of his mind is concerned, he acts ignorantly, and in that sense innocently. Malice in fact is quite a different thing; it means an actual malicious intention on the part of the person who has done the wrongful act, and it may be, in proceedings based on wrongs independent of contract, a very material ingredient in the question of whether a valid cause of action can be stated.” 35. Now, applying the broad concepts of “malice in law” as stated by Viscount Haldane L.C. any justification for registration of zero FIR would not suffice except by demonstrating that the action of the officer-in-charge of Argora PS has valid justification in law. Whereas, there is none atleast not shown to the Court by the respondents. This is not a case where the petitioners have raised the boggie of mala fides like the last refuge of a losing litigant, Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra : (1976) 1 SCC 800 . The cause shown by them is real and not mere pretensions. The officer-in-charge of Argora PS was under a statutory duty to treat both the complaints of the respondent no. 4 as his further statements made in course of the investigation of Kotwali PS Case No. 159 of 2021 but he has acted contrary to the procedure mandated under the law. The decision to register zero FIR is an action clearly in breach of the provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned senior counsel for the State of West Bengal has referred to the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs to justify registration of the FIR at Panchla PS in the State of West Bengal. The decision to register zero FIR is an action clearly in breach of the provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned senior counsel for the State of West Bengal has referred to the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs to justify registration of the FIR at Panchla PS in the State of West Bengal. If that was the understanding of the West Bengal police, it was clearly a misunderstanding arising out of misreading of the said notification. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 provides that a zero FIR can be filed in any police station by the victims, irrespective of their residence or the place of occurrence of crime. OM dated 10th May 2013 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on which the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 2 has placed reliance provides that if at the time of registration of FIR it becomes apparent that the crime was committed outside the jurisdiction of the police station, the police should be appropriately instructed to register a zero FIR and ensure that the FIR is transferred to the concerned police station. The complaint dated 31st July 2022 made by the respondent no. 4 at Argora PS at Ranchi could not have been transmitted to the Panchla PS. Therefore, sub-section (2) of section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been wrongly referred to by the learned senior counsel for the West Bengal to justify registration of First Information Report No. 276 of 2022 at Panchla PS. The territorial jurisdiction of the police station is provided under sub-section (1) of section 156. The police can investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such police station would have power to enquire into and try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. Sub-section (2) is in the nature of a saving provision which provides that no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered to investigate. Sub-section (2) is in the nature of a saving provision which provides that no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered to investigate. The action of the officer-in-charge of Argora PS to register zero FIR was clearly a dereliction of duty as his action was not authorized in law, rather in breach of the statutory duty cast upon him, State of A.P v. Punati Ramulu : 1994 Supp (1) SCC 590. Therefore, the registration of zero FIR and transmission thereof to Panchla PS must be held illegal and without authority of law and thus actuated with malice in law. 36. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that the entire episode is shrouded with suspicious and mysterious exchange of communications between the West Bengal and Jharkhand police. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to column no. IV of Argora PS Case No. 000 of 2022 dated 31st July 2022 which bears striking-off the time of occurrence and the place of occurrence has been shown at Howrah (Gramin) area. Even assuming that the officer-in-charge of Argora PS has presumably converted the complaint dated 22nd July 2022 of the respondent no. 4 into zero FIR on an understanding that no cognizable offence was committed in the local area within his jurisdiction, on that day, there was no information supplied to him that the petitioners were detained by the West Bengal police while carrying huge amount of unaccounted cash. In the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, it is stated that upon a telephonic request by Dy.SP (Rural), Panchla, West Bengal made to the officer-in-charge of Argora PS on 31st July 2022 a copy of zero FIR was sent through e-mail at e-mail ID provided by the said Dy.SP and, later on, a copy of zero FIR was handed over at Panchla PS on 3rd August 2022 by Sumit Kumar Singh who is posted as Sub-Inspector of Police at Argora PS. In these facts, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that if in the complaint dated 31st July 2022 the respondent no. In these facts, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that if in the complaint dated 31st July 2022 the respondent no. 4 has simply stated that Irfan Ansari and Rajesh Kacchap were wanting him to come to Kolkata then how the officer-in-charge of Argora PS could know that an offence has been committed within Howrah (Gramin) area, the previous afternoon. Similarly, it is also unbelievable that the officer-in-charge of Panchla PS had prior information of registration of zero FIR at Argora PS on 31st July 2022. The learned senior counsel has also demonstrated, quite clearly, that different copies of the same complaint dated 30th July 2022 are filed in the counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit of the respondent-State of Jharkhand. Quite strangely and contrary to his complaints dated 30th and 31st July 2022, the respondent no. 4 has pleaded that upon receipt of the information that the petitioners were apprehended on 30th July 2022 by the West Bengal police, a sum of Rs. 49,98,300/- was recovered and they were arrested at Panchla on 31st July 2022, he gave a written complaint to Argora PS making specific allegations against the petitioners that they had approached him with assurance of Ministerial berth in the new government, which would be formed post-defection. However, I must indicate that these are facts recorded in the affidavit of the respondents and the documents attached therewith and some arguments were made in this regard and that is the reason I have noted the aforementioned facts. 37. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I arrive at the irresistible conclusion that the complaints dated 30th and 31st July 2022 are further statements made under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection to Kotwali PS Case No. 159 of 2021 and the incident reported by the respondent no. 4 to the officer-in-charge of Argora PS is distinctly in connection to and part of the same conspiracy suspected by him in the year 2021 - vide Kotwali PS Case No. 159 of 2021. Accordingly, I hold that the registration of zero FIR vide Argora PS Case No. 000 of 2022 dated 31st July 2022 is illegal, without jurisdiction and tantamounts to second FIR and, accordingly, Argora PS Case No. 000 of 2022 dated 31st July 2022 is quashed. Accordingly, I hold that the registration of zero FIR vide Argora PS Case No. 000 of 2022 dated 31st July 2022 is illegal, without jurisdiction and tantamounts to second FIR and, accordingly, Argora PS Case No. 000 of 2022 dated 31st July 2022 is quashed. I further hold that transmission of Argora PS Case No. 000 of 2022 dated 31st July 2022 to the officer-in-charge of Panchla PS within Howrah (Gramin) district in the State of West Bengal is illegal, without authority of law and actuated with malice. 38. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to “Ritesh Tewari”, Ritesh Tewari v. State of U.P : (2010) 10 SCC 677 , “Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar”, State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar : (2011) 14 SCC 770 and “Kavita Manikikar”, Kavita Manikikar of Mumbai v. CBI : 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1095, to put forth a proposition that once registration of zero FIR on 31st July 2022 by the officer-in-charge of Argora PS at Ranchi and transfer of zero FIR to Panchla PS on the same day are held illegal the consequences shall follow as expressed in Latin maxim “sublato fundamento cadit opus”, which means when foundation is removed the superstructure falls. 39. The law as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases is very clear that every subsequent acts/actions taken pursuant to any order or decision, or act or omission on the part of the authority shall be non est. 40. In “Ritesh Tewari” ,(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the law on the subject, as under: “32. It is settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironical to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. (Vide Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam; Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa and SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari.)” 33. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironical to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. (Vide Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam; Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa and SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari.)” 33. In C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran this Court held that a right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. 34. In Mangal Prasad Tamoli v. Narvadeshwar Mishra this Court held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside.” 41. In “Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar” ,(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “107. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact situation, the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opusmeaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case.” 42. While so, the registration of Panchla PS Case No. 276 of 2022 dated 31st July 2022 is also held illegal and, accordingly, quashed. 43. W.P.(Cr.) No. 483 of 2022 is allowed, in the aforesaid terms.