Patna High Court
Ram Sagar Sharma vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 March, 2014
Author: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
Bench: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ No.775 of 2010
===========================================================
Ram Sagar Sharma son of late Ram Ratan Sharma, R/O Bali Belchhi, P.S. Chandi,
Distt-Nalanda.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
3. Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur
4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur
5. The Inspector General of Police, CID. Govt. of Bihar, Patna
6. The Superintendent of Police, CIC, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Distt- Sitamarhi
8. The Officer-in-charge, Sitamarhi, P.S. District- Sitamarhi
9. The Police Inspector, Incharge, C.B. Team, Sitamarhi
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Adv
For the State : Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, AC to GA-9
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 13-03-2014
Petitioner has asked for quashing of FIR of Sitamarhi P.S.
Case No. 351/2010 by way of filing instant writ petition.
2. With regard to apprehension of Maoist regarding which
confidential information was received, a raiding party was constituted
and house of Bhola Sah was cordoned in between night of
15/16.07.2005and during course thereof, firing was also effected perceiving coming out of members of extremist group resulting casualty of Seema Devi as well as Parvati Devi. During course of search, Rakesh Kumar s/o of Bhola Sah along with Chandan Kumar were apprehended along with recovery of cartridges of different bores, 2 country made pistol, charger for which Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 408/2005 was registered on the statement of petitioner, Ram Sagar Sharma who was the then Officer-in-charge of Sitamarhi P.S. During midst of investigation, the Government entrusted the investigation to CID who, after concluding the same filed final report. Simultaneously, also observed that Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 408/2005 was intentionally drawn up to cover up their own fault by way of false seizure of arms and ammunition as well as fate disclosure and for that, as per, direction two cases were filed one against the petitioner relating to recovery of fire arms/ammunition, the subject matter of instant writ and the other against the members of armed force who had fired resulting death.
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the present FIR happens to be out and out the second FIR for the same occurrence for which Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 408/2005 was registered. It has further been submitted that second FIR for the same occurrence is not at all permissible because of the fact that same happens to be barred in terms of Section 162 Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that since Ram Lal Narang's case reported in 1979 (2) SCC 322 even upto Amit Sah's Case reported in 2013(2) PLJR 373 (SC), it has conclusively been held that second FIR for the same occurrence is not at all permissible because of the fact that subsequent 3 prosecution is found prohibited under the banner of double jeopardy under Section 300 Cr.P.C. Apart from this, it has been submitted that the present FIR happens to be bad in the background of pendency of protest petition which will callow, in case, is proceeded with as a complaint petition followed with cognizance.
4. Per contra, learned AC to GA-9 submitted that it is not a case where for the same occurrence two FIRs have been instituted rather after conduction of investigation of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 408/2005 instituted on the Fard-e-beyan of petitioner being informant of that case, found false and on account thereof final report was submitted. Therefore, on the basis of conclusion of the earlier investigation, the instant case has been registered and being so the plea of petitioner has got no legal aspiration.
5. It has also been submitted that presence of protest petition will not adversely affect upon the prospect of instant case because of the fact that the present case happens to be at nascent stage, investigation is going on and if during course of trial, the trial court will perceive any adverse impact, then in that event, the trial court will be competent enough to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
6. When a case is registered relating to cognizable offence, it is to be investigated as per law so envisaged under different 4 Sections of Cr.P.C. falling under Chapter-XII and its conclusion is to be seen in terms of Sections- 169, 170 as well as 173 of the Cr.P.C. Basically, Section 173 commands the ultimate result under the reign of Section 169 or 170 of the Cr.P.C. because of the fact that in either of the case, the Investigating Officer is required to submit the report in terms of mandate so prescribed under Section-173 Cr.P.C. Section- 169 deals with the eventuality whereunder after concluding investigation, the I.O. finds it deficient one leading to filing of final report, contrary to the same filing of charge-sheet in terms of Section- 170 of the Cr.P.C. There happens to be no hitch or controversy with regard to sailing of investigation as mandated under Chapter-XII of the Cr.P.C., be it a cognizable or non cognizable case (after having proper order.
7. To avoid false reporting or persuading on false pretext or duping public servant whereupon the public servant swung into action and subsequently found it false, has been made punishable in the eye of law and for that apart from others, Section-182, 211 of the IPC have been identified but for launching a prosecution, certain limitations have been prescribed which Section-195 of the Cr.P.C. details. The sole question at the present moment now hangs is, instead of filing complaint in terms of Section 195 Cr.P.C. for prosecution of informant/petitioner for having false information with regard to 5 Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 408/2005 with aid of Section-182, 211 of the IPC, registration of separate independent case is permissible or not and for that minute observation of facts of the case is also to be looked into.
8. Apart from having casualty on account of firing made by police constable for which, as the present FIR also reveals a separate case has been registered while for the recovery of fire-arms and cartridges from the house of Bhola Sah, instant case has been registered.
9. It is an admitted fact that the recovery of fire-arms along with ammunition was without any license and on account thereof, its possession was punishable under different Sections of the Arms Act. When the aforesaid recovery has been made by the petitioner for which the seizure list was prepared and aforesaid recovery has been found a case of plantation during course of investigation of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 408/2005, then in that event, certainly, petitioner was accountable to explain presence of such unauthorized arms without any license and being so that could not come within the purview of Section-182, 211 of the IPC and the application of Section 182, 211 IPC will not attract prosecution therefor.
10. Now coming to another aspect wherein institution of present case has been suggested to be the second FIR for the same 6 cause is found misconceived because of the fact that the present case has been conceived from stage when earlier case, that means to say, Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 408/2005 came to an end in terms of Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. followed with Section-173 of the Cr.P.C.. Virtually, both two cases have got independent identity and have been recorded on different footing than that of, for which Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 408/2005 was registered.
11. With regard to presence of protest petition, that has got independent identity and its impact will be perceived during course of trial. So far the present stage is concerned, presence of protest petition is not going to castigate the registration of instant case.
12. Consequent thereupon, the instant writ is found devoid of merit and is accordingly, rejected.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) Patna High Court March 13th 2014 perwez/AFR __ |__| U |__| T