Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Kaushik Kumar Choubey @ Kaushik Kr vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 December, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

       IN     THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           W.P.(Cr.) No. 736 of 2023
      1. Kaushik Kumar Choubey @ Kaushik Kr.
      Choubey, aged about 38 years, son of Akhil Kumar
      Choubey @ Akhil Choubey, resident of 810,
      Hospital Colony, Hanuman Mandir P.O. Kathara,
      P.S. Gomia, District Bokaro;
      2. Akhil Kumar Choubey @ Akhil Choubey, aged
      about 64 years, son of Arun Kumar Choubey,
      resident of 1b/170, Hospital Colony, Hanuman
      Mandir, Bodiya South, Kathara, P.O. Kathara, P.S.
      Gomia, District Bokaro:
      3. Anuradha Choubey, aged about 51 years, wife of
      Akhil Kumar Choubey, Resident of lb/170,
      Hospital Colony, Hanuman Mandir, Bodiya South,
      Kathara, P.O. Kathara,; P.S. Gomia, District
      Bokaro.
      4. Kishan Choubey Kishan, aged about 35 years,
      son of Akhil Kumar Choubey, Resident of House
      No. 6A, Garri, P.O. Kathara, P.S. Gomia, District
      Bokaro:
      5. Sanju Pandey, aged about 57 years, wife of
      Arvind Kumar Pandey, Resident of Block Road,
      Near Kali Mandir, Kathitand, P.O. and P.S. Ratu,
      District Ranchi.
                                                      ..... ... Petitioners
                                  Versus
      1. State of Jharkhand.
      2. Deepa Kumari, daughter of Late Girish Nand
      Tiwary, Wife of Kaushik Kumar Choubey,
      Resident of Shiv Durga Mandir Lane, Ratu Road,
      P.O. Ratu, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi.
                                                     ..... ...       Respondents
                               --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Binit Chandra, A.C. to A.A.G.-III. For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Yadu Nandan Mishra, Advocate.

------

04/ 12.12.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2. Prayer in this writ petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings, arising out of Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 290 of 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Ranchi.

3. Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 is the husband and other petitioners are the in-laws of the informant-respondent No. 2. He submits that prior to this, the informant has lodged one FIR, being Kasmar P.S. Case No. 117 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 1279 of 2022 for the alleged offences under Sections 323, 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, contained in Annexure-2, which is still pending and on the same facts, the present case has been lodged, in view of that this FIR is double jeopardy.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that prima facie it appears that the contents of both the FIRs are similar.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that the transactions of both the FIRs are different, in view of that both the FIRs can be maintained. He submits that in the present FIR, Sections are 494, 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas in the earlier FIR, the Sections are 323, 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. In view of the above, the court has gone through the contents of both the FIRs and finds that in both the FIRs, the allegation of demand with regard to Rs. 11 lakhs and one car is similar and further allegations are almost similar to each other, in view of that, it is crystal clear that for the same allegations, two FIRs have been lodged.

7. If the transaction is same and for that two FIRs were registered, the subsequent one can be amalgamated and that was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vrs. C.B.I., reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348, where in 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 -2- 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 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 -3- the parties and it is for the trial court to decide the same in accordance with law.

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."

8. In view of the judgment of Amitbhai Anilchandra(supra) the second F.I.R is contrary to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case. As such, the second FIR, being Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 290 of 2023 will be treated as supplementary FIR to the first FIR, being Kasmar P.S. Case No. 117 of 2022 and the investigation will proceed in the first FIR only. If anything contrary has come in the investigation in the second FIR, that will be amalgamated with the first FIR.

9. 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.

10. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-