Jharkhand High Court
Ramendra Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... ...Opp. ... on 26 April, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3554 of 2013
Ramendra Kumar .... ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ...Opp. Party
With
Cr.M.P. No. 2165 of 2014
Ramendra Kumar .... ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ...Opp. Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners: Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate ( in both cases) For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. ( in Cr.M.P. No.3554/2013) Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P. ( in Cr.M.P. No. 2165/2014) 06/ Dated:-26.04.2023 In both the petitions common question of law are involved that is why both the petitions have been heard together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Priya Shrestha and Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, learned counsels for the State.
3. Cr.M.P. No. 2165 of 2014 has been filed for quashing of First Information Report being Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 15 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 151 of 2011 dated 17.01.2011 on the ground that a similar First Information Report bearing Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No. 149 of 2011 dated 17.01.2011 registered for the offence under sections 147, 149, 341, 342, 353, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. has already been instituted by the informant, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hazaribagh.
4. Cr.M.P. No. 3554 of 2013 has been filed for quashing of 2 First Information Report being Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 166 of 2011 dated 18.01.2011 on the ground that a similar First Information Report bearing Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 15 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No. 151 of 2011 dated 17.01.2011 have already been instituted by the informant, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hazaribagh
5. F.I.R. being Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2011 has been lodged alleging therein that the coal transportation of Barka Sayal area has been stopped by UCWU union by unlawful assembly w.e.f 14.01.2011 and it was requested with the Union representatives to resolve the issue of payment of wages to the contractual workmen engaged by M/s Ajay Transport Company from 12.01.2011 to 16.01.2011 regularly and requested the agitating union to withdraw their agitation. The agitation has been led by Sri Ramendra Kumar, JBCCI member, Sri Bidhyachal, area secretary UCWU, Sri N. K. Rai, Sri Subhash Yadav, Sri R.P. Singh, Sri R.K. Singh, Sri Vinod Mishra and others. Due to this agitation the informant became unable to transport approx. 7000 of tons of coal to various power sectors and thereby incurring loss to the tune of Rs. 1.05 crores per day to the exchequer. This was happened due to the intervention of the unions while performing official duties by public servants. Thus, it was requested to kindly look into the matter and take necessary steps to diffuse the situation and bring normalcy for smooth and safer dispatch of coal from the mines to the respective sidings for onward transportation to respective power stations. It was further informed that the power stations are starving of coal and they have expressed fear that power generation will come to a halt if supply not resumed immediately. Critical situation has been conveyed by them and further 3 it was requested to intervene to maintain law and order and restore normalcy/peace in the area to ensure supply of coal to the vital power sectors of the country.
6. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case has already been instituted due to agitation and investigated and chargesheet has been submitted. He submits that the second F.I.R. being Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 15 of 2011 is consequence F.I.R. of Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2011. He further submits that Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2011 has been further instituted on 18.01.2011 which is consequence F.I.R. of Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2011. He submits that since two F.I.Rs. are consequential F.I.R of Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2011, investigation of all these cases may be done together with Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2011 and the proceeding may be proceeded in accordance with law. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of"Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah V. C.B.I., (2013) 6 SCC 348 wherein paras 38 and 60 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"38. Mr Raval, learned ASG, by referring T.T. Antony [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] submitted that the said principles are not applicable and relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case as the said judgment laid down the ratio that there cannot be two FIRs relating to the same offence or occurrence. The learned ASG further pointed out that in the present case, there are two distinct incidents/occurrences, inasmuch as one being the conspiracy relating to the murder of Sohrabuddin with the help of Tulsiram Prajapati and the other being the conspiracy to murder Tulsiram Prajapati -- a potential witness to the earlier conspiracy to murder Sohrabuddin. We are unable to accept the claim of the learned ASG. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid proposition of law making registration of fresh FIR impermissible and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution is reiterated and reaffirmed in the following subsequent decisions of this Court :
(1) Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash [(2004) 13 SCC 292 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 211] , (2) Babubhai v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 12 SCC 254 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 336] , (3) Chirra Shivraj v. State of A.P. [(2010) 14 SCC 444 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 757 : AIR 2011 SC 604] , and (4) C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. [(2010) 9 SCC 567 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1402] In C. Muniappan [(2010) 9 SCC 567 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1402] this Court explained the "consequence test" i.e. if an offence forming part of the second FIR arises as a consequence of the offence alleged in the first FIR then offences covered by both the FIRs are the same and, accordingly, the second FIR will be impermissible in law. In other words, the offences covered in both the FIRs shall have to be treated 4 as a part of the first FIR.
60. In view of the above discussion and conclusion, the second FIR dated 29-4-2011 being RC No. 3(S)/2011/Mumbai filed by CBI is contrary to the directions issued in judgment and order dated 8-4-2011 by this Court in Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat [(2011) 5 SCC 79 :
(2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 526] and accordingly the same is quashed. As a consequence, the charge-sheet filed on 4-9-2012, in pursuance of the second FIR, be treated as a supplementary charge-sheet in the first FIR. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the claim of both the parties and it is for the trial court to decide the same in accordance with law. Consequently, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 149 of 2012 is allowed. Since the said relief is applicable to all the persons arrayed as accused in the second FIR, no further direction is required in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 5 of 2013."
7. Relying on the said judgment, he submits that two F.I.Rs are bad in law and materials of those F.I.Rs. may be treated as first F.I.R being Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2011.
8. Learned counsels for the State submit that two F.I.Rs. are not consequential case of Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2011 and in that view of the matter the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone contents of Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2011, Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 15 of 2011 and Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2011 and finds that admittedly Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2011 was instituted for agitation being made by some people. Looking into the contents of Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 15 of 2011, it is crystal clear that this F.I.R. was instituted alleging therein that 100-120 people were agitating before the CCL company at Poda gate. Thus, it is crystal clear that this F.I.R. is consequential F.I.R. of first F.I.R.. Looking into the contents of Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2011, it appears that some workmen have sustained injuries and were admitted in the hospital and Nurse has instituted the said F.I.R. Thus, the 3rd F.I.R. is also consequential F.I.R. of Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2011.
10. In view of contents of all these F.I.Rs, it is crystal clear that 5 even forming part, second and third F.I.Rs. arise as consequential offence lodged as first F.I.R. of Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2011 and in that view of the matter the aforesaid judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. In view of the judgment of Amitbhai Anilchandra(supra) the second and third F.I.Rs. are contrary to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case. Accordingly, the same are quashed.
12. As a consequence chagesheet has been submitted in Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 15 of 2011 and contents of F.I.R. in Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2011 treated as supplementary chargesheet in first F.I.R. being Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2011.
13. It is made clear that this Court has not gone through the merits of claim of both the parties and it is open to the trial court to decide the same in accordance with law.
14. Both these petitions stand disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/-