Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Kacchap And Others vs State Of Jharkhand Through Secretary on 24 February, 2023
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P(Cr.) No. 483 of 2022
Rajesh Kacchap and others ..........Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Home, Jail & Disaster
Management and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Azim H. Laskar, Advocate
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II
For the State of West Bengal : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Tushar, Advocate
Mr. Rajarshi Singh, Advocate
For Union of India : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sahu, Sr.PC
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
-------
Order No.07 /Dated: 24th February 2023 Counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents have been filed.
2. A rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the petitioners has also been filed.
3. In continuation to the arguments made on 3rd February 2023, Sri Ranjit Kumar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to various documents annexed with the counter-affidavit/supplementary counter-affidavit of the respondents to submit that the registration of zero FIR by the Jharkhand police was illegal and, not only that, transmission of the same to the West Bengal police was also illegal. It is submitted that the documents produced by the respondents themselves indicate serious illegality committed in registration of zero FIR and subsequent transmission of the same to the West Bengal police.
4. In support of his submission that the registration of zero FIR, on the basis of which a FIR was registered by the West Bengal police, is 2 W.P(Cr) No.483 of 2022 illegal and it amounts to registration of a second FIR for the same complaint, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to the following judgments:
(i) "TT Antony and Ors. v. State of Kerala" (2001) 6 SCC 181,
(ii) "Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI & Anr." (2013) 6 SCC 348,
(iii) "Ramesh Pateria v. State of M.P" 2018 SCC OnLine Chh 829, and
(iv) "Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India & Ors."
(2020) 14 SCC 12.
5. It is further submitted that the High Court of Jharkhand has jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition in view of the amendment made in Article 226 of the Constitution of India - vide clause 2.
6. The petitioners have relied on the following judgments to submit that the High Court of Jharkhand has jurisdiction in the matter:
(i) "Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra & Ors." (2000) 7 SCC 640,
(ii) "Mohan Baitha & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr." (2001) 4 SCC 350,
(iii) "Rajendra Ramchandra Kavalekar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr." (2009) 11 SCC 286,
(iv) "Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors." (2014) 2 SCC 1,
(v) "Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana & Ors." ( 2020) 10 SCC 92,
(vi) "Ramesh Boghabhai Bhut v. State & Anr." 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1475, and
(vii) "Directorate of Enforcement & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors." W.P.(Crl.) 1768 of 2021.
7. The following judgments are on the point that when the initial/ base action is not in consonance with law, all consequential proceedings will be non-est:
(i) "Ritesh Tewari & Anr. v. State of U.P & Ors." (2010) 10 3 W.P(Cr) No.483 of 2022 SCC 677,
(ii) "State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors."
(2011) 14 SCC 770, and
(iii) "Kavita Manikikkar v. CBI" 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1095.
8. Sri Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned senior counsel for the State of West Bengal has submitted that this is not a stage at which this Court can go into the factual dispute which has been sought to be agitated by the petitioners in the present proceeding. It is submitted that zero FIR registered by Argora PS, Ranchi reflects only an apprehension of the complainant who is respondent no.4 and the offence has actually been committed within the territory of the State of West Bengal and while so, the FIR registered by the West Bengal police is quite legal and this Court has no jurisdiction to either entertain the present writ petition or to interfere with exercise of the statutory powers of the police under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. The learned senior counsel for the State of West Bengal has referred to the following judgments:
(i) "Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. Of Delhi) & Anr." (1999) 8 SCC 728,
(ii) "Naresh Kavarchand Khatri v. State of Gujarat & Anr." (2008) 8 SCC 300,
(iii) "Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat & Ors." (2011) 5 SCC 79,
(iv) "Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India & Ors." (2020) 14 SCC 12,
(v) "Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors."
2020 SCC OnLine SC 683, and
(vi) a judgment of Madras High Court dated 13 th January 2015 passed in Crl. O.P. No.22498 of 2014 and M.P No.1 of 2014 titled "S. Ilanahai v. The State of Mumbai and Ors.".
10. Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Jharkhand besides adopting the submissions made on behalf of the State of West Bengal has submitted that it is by now well- settled that a second FIR can very well be registered if the incident in both 4 W.P(Cr) No.483 of 2022 the FIRs is different, accused persons are different and there is no sameness in both the FIRs.
11. The learned Additional Advocate General has also relied on the following judgments:
(i) "Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors." (2010) 12 SCC 254, and
(ii) "Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI & Anr." (2013) 6 SCC 348.
12. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has adopted the arguments made by Sri Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned senior counsel and Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate General.
13. In rejoinder, Sri Ranjit Kumar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has made submissions on the applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Babubhai" and "Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah" to submit that the test of sameness as indicated in the aforesaid judgments is squarely attracted in the present case inasmuch as the larger conspiracy was to topple the Government.
14. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has made further submissions about bona-fide of the West Bengal police in lodging the FIR after waiting and calling for the information which was in the form of zero FIR.
15. Judgment reserved.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) sudhir