Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Vaidyanath Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ... on 19 April, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 2700 of 2016
----
Dr. Vaidyanath Singh .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. A.N. Topno, Advocate
For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. A. K. Verma, Advocate
----
08/19.04.2024 Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Topno, the learned counsel for the respondent State as well as Mr. Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The prayer in this petition has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the cognizance order dated 03.10.2016 in connection with Sadar Town P.S. Case No.103 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.697 of 2016 (arising out of Complaint Case), pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj.
3. The F.I.R has been registered against the petitioner and six other accused persons. The allegation in brief is that the informant had purchased a piece of land through a registered sale deed bearing deed 1 no.7789, 7791 and 7795 dated 12.09.2015. It was communicated to them that one Neelima Charan had executed power of attorney in favour of the petitioner for a piece of land situated at Sudna, Khata No.51, Plot No.1362, 1365 and the informant/complainant had paid Rs.19,00,000/- but later on he came to know that the power of attorney was fake and on the basis of fake power of attorney the land was sold and the amount was misappropriated and on that basis a case was instituted for the offence under sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 of the IPC.
4. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute of land in question is with regard to transfer of plot and earlier Palamau (Town) P.S. Case No.29 of 2016 was instituted against the accused persons on 04.02.2016 and thereafter the complaint was lodged on 14.03.2016 which was transferred under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C to the police and pursuant to that the F.I.R was registered on 01.05.2016 being Palamau (Town) P.S. Case No.103 of 2016 under the similar sections. He submits that however the police has submitted charge sheet and the learned court has taken cognizance and the cognizance is not in accordance with law. He submits that this is double jeopardy and for one transaction two F.I.Rs have been registered.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent State has opposed the prayer and submits that in the first case, the accused persons are informant and in the present case the accused persons are the informant of earlier case.
6. The learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that falsely the land in question was transferred and in view of that, both the cases are maintainable. He submits that in view of that this petition may kindly be 2 dismissed.
7. Looking into the contents of the F.I.R, Palamau (Town) P.S. Case No.29 of 2016 it transpires that the subject matter of that case is plot no.1362 and 1365, Khata no.51, rakba -10 decimals and looking to the contents of the present F.I.R., it transpires that for Khata no.51, plot nos.1362 and 1364, the present F.I.R has been lodged. It has been stated that the charge sheet has already been submitted in the present case and first case is also pending. Thus, it is crystal clear that for the same transaction, two cases have been registered. In this regard, a reference may be made to 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 3 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."
8. In view of above judgment and considering the facts of the present case, it transpires that for the same transaction two cases have been registered and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah V. C.B.I."(supra), the second F.I.R is contrary to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case.
9. Accordingly, the cognizance order dated 03.10.2016 including the First Information Report (FIR) in connection with Sadar Town P.S. Case No.103 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.697 of 2016 (arising out of Complaint Case), pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj are quashed.
10. As a consequence, the charge sheet which has been submitted in the present case being Palamau (Town) P.S. Case No.103 of 4 2016 shall be treated as supplementary charge sheet in the first F.I.R being Palamau (Town) P.S. Case No.29 of 2016 and the trial in the first case will proceed in accordance with law.
11. It is made clear that this Court has not gone through the merits of the claim of both the parties and it is open to the trial court to decide the same in accordance with law.
12. Cr.M.P. No.2700 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
13. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/, A.F.R. 5