Jharkhand High Court
Binu Jaiswal @ Binu Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 January, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1898 of 2013
1. Binu Jaiswal @ Binu Kumar
2. Rinku Soundik @ Rinku Saindika
3. Ajay Swarankar
4. Robert Gupta
5. Vikash Vishwakarma @ Vikash Kumar
6. Gayan Prakash @ Gayan Prakash Gupta
7. Sudhir Swarnakar @ Sudhir Prasad Swaranakar
8. Ashok @ Alok Gupta @ Ashok Prasad
9. Amit Kumar @ Amit Gupta
.......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
...... Opp. Party
........
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
09/Dated: 29/01/2024
Heard Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel for the informant.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing second F.I.R. being Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 64/2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 944 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Dalgonganj.
3. Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the same occurrence dated 25.05.2013 earlier Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 63/2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 943 of 2013 was registered in which chargesheet has been submitted and the matter is pending for supply of police paper. He submits that subsequently, the present case has been registered for the same occurrence in which trial is going on. He further submits that for the same transaction both the cases are there and there is double jeopardy. He submits that the entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.
4. Mr. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel for the informant submits that there was law and order fall as members of two communities were involved in arson. He 2 submits that there was arson of the shops of the informant pursuant to that present case has been lodged. He submits that the case is at the fag end of trial and at this stage this Court may not interfere.
5. The Court finds that in both the cases occurrence is said to be dated 25.05.2013 in view of that allegations are made of altercation between the two communities. The allegations are made of putting some of shops on fire and the said shops are also subject matter of Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 63/2013. Thus, it is clear that for the same transaction both the cases have been registered. In the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah V. C.B.I. (2013) 6 SCC 348 in para 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 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."
6. In view of above and considering that both the cases are arising out of same transaction, the aforesaid judgment is applicable in the present case.
7. Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 64/2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 944 of 3 2013 is consequence F.I.R. in which chargesheet has already been submitted and in Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 63/2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 943 of 2013 chargesheet is also there.
8. In view of above, the chargesheet submitted in Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 63/2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 943 of 2013 and the contents of the said F.I.R. be treated in Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 64/2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 944 of 2013 and Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 64/2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 944 of 2013 be amalgamated in Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 63/2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 943 of 2013 and the trial will proceed in accordance with law.
9. It is made clear that this Court has not gone through the merits and claim of the parties and the trial will proceed in accordance with law.
10. This petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/