Jharkhand High Court
Jagdish Rawani vs The State Of Jharkhand ........... Opp. ... on 8 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1 Cr.M.P. No. 3854 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3854 of 2023
Jagdish Rawani, aged about 46 years, son of Mohan Rawani,
R/o Village- Karmatand, P.O.- Damodarpur, P.S.- Baliapur,
Dist.- Dhanbad ....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ........... Opp. Party
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, Addl.PP.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well for quashing the F.I.R. being Sindri P.S. Case No. 92 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 353, 332, 333, 337, 393, 448, 427, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The brief facts of the case is that on 25.08.2022, Police Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge of Sindri Police Station got an information that an unlawful assembly has been formed by the accused persons of the case, being armed with deadly weapons. The Officer-in-Charge along with the police personnel at about 1:30 P.M. stopped the members of the unlawful assembly who were out to kill Lakhi Singh and to kill the police personnel who were protecting Lakhi Singh. The members of the unlawful assembly entered inside the office of Janta Mazdoor 2 Cr.M.P. No. 3854 of 2023 Sangh belonging to Lakhi Singh and vandalized the same. On attempt being made by police to prohibit them, the members of the unlawful assembly resorted to brick pelting and caused murderous assault upon the police personnel. They also fired upon the police party from firearms and also vandalized the vehicles parked in front of the house of Lakhi Singh. The members of the unlawful assembly assaulted Assistant Sub Inspector of police -Ashok Kumar Singh and also pushed the informant causing injury and they also assaulted Sub Inspector of Police -Abhay Kumar and the petitioner was also a member of the said unlawful assembly.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the selfsame occurrence, police firstly lodged Baliapur P.S. Case No. 143 of 2022 and subsequently Sindri P.S. Case No. 92 of 2022 has been instituted. Hence, it is submitted that the F.I.R. of Sindri P.S. Case No. 92 of 2022 is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. In support of his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348, para 38 and 39 of which reads as under:-
"38. Xxxxxxxxxx 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 as a part of the first FIR.
39. In the case on hand, in view of the principles laid down in the above referred decisions, in particular, C. Muniappan [(2010) 9 SCC 567 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1402] as well as in Chirra Shivraj [(2010) 14 SCC 444 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 757 : AIR 2011 SC 604], 3 Cr.M.P. No. 3854 of 2023 apply with full force since according to CBI itself it is the case where:
39.1. The larger conspiracy allegedly commenced in November 2005 and culminated into the murder of Tulsiram Prajapati in December 2006 in a fake encounter.
39.2. The alleged fake encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati was a consequence of earlier false encounter of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi since Tulsiram Prajapati was an eyewitness to the abduction and consequent murders of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi. 39.3. Tulsiram Prajapati was allegedly kept under the control of the accused police officers, as a part of the same conspiracy, till the time he was allegedly killed in a fake encounter."
In this respect, learned counsel of the petitioner, also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254, para 21 of which reads as under:-
"21. In such a case 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. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counterclaim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted."
5. It is then submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that if 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 the offences covered by both the FIRs are the same; he is appellant to the facts of in this case, then the second FIR can be termed as the same has arisen for the acts done by the petitioner, who was the accused person of Sindri P.S. Case No. 92 of 2022, as a consequence of the offence alleged in the first FIR being the FIR of Baliapur P.S. Case No. 143 of 2022 hence it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding as well as the F.I.R. being Sindri P.S. Case No. 92 of 2022 be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned Addl.PP on the other hand vehemently, opposes the prayer for the quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as the F.I.R. being Sindri P.S. Case 4 Cr.M.P. No. 3854 of 2023 No. 92 of 2022 and relies upon the judgment of this court in the case of the Dipu Mahato @ Deepu Mahato @ Deepak Kr. Mahato, passed in CrMP No. 1480 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023 and submits that this Court has already rejected the selfsame prayer of Dipu Mahato @ Deepu Mahato and since the allegations against the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of the co-accused, Dipu Mahato @ Deepu Maahto. Learned Addl.PP further submits that the place of occurrence, the time of occurrence, the police station under which the occurrences took place are entirely different and the allegations are also different, hence the two occurrences cannot be treated to be of the same transaction, hence, it is submitted that, this criminal miscellaneous petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that Baliapur P.S. Case No. 143 of 2022 has been lodged in connection with an occurrence which took place on 11:45 A.M. on 25.08.2022 involving the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 342, 353, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code; according to which the petitioner and the co-accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly and being armed with deadly weapons, in prosecution of common object of the assembly, the members of the unlawful assembly abused the patrolling party of Baliapur Police Station and manhandled them and also deterred them from discharging their duties by using criminal force and tore the uniform of the informant of the Baliapur Police Station being the Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police.
8. This Court is of the considered view that the place of occurrence of Sindri P.S. Case No. 92 of 2022 is within the jurisdiction of Sindri Police Station in which the 5 Cr.M.P. No. 3854 of 2023 office of a Labour Union and the adjacent areas were vandalized and the police officers of Sindri Police Station who went to spot on getting the information about the offence were assaulted and attempt to murder them, was made by firing upon them from firearms whereas the occurrence in respect of which Baliapur P.S. Case No. 143 of 2022 has been lodged is for an altogether different one within the jurisdiction of Baliapur Police Station where criminal force was used against the police personnel of Baliapur Police Station by abusing and manhandling them by the unlawful assembly. Without doubt, the principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of C. Muniappan & Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2010 9 SCC 567, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India applied the "consequence test" but even after applying the "consequence test" test to the facts of this case, this court finds that the place of occurrence and time of the occurrence and the narration of the events are entirely different; so by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that using criminal force against the public servant, police personnel of Baliapur Police Station, is a consequence of the petitioner and other persons, committing the offences alleged in the FIR of Sindri P.S. Case no. 92 of 2022, which took place in the office of labour union situated within the local limits of jurisdiction of Sindri Police Station and this Court, has already, held thus; in the judgment passed in respect of the selfsame prayer made by the co-accused Dipu Mahato @ Deepu Mahato @ Deepak Kr. Mahato (supra). Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, since the place of occurrence, time of occurrence and the manner of occurrence of the two incidents are entirely different, this is not a fit case where the F.I.R. of Sindri P.S. Case No. 92 of 2022 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 6 Cr.M.P. No. 3854 of 2023 341, 323, 307, 353, 332, 333, 337, 393, 448, 427, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act be quashed and set aside.
9. Accordingly this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 8th January, 2024 Smita /AFR