Jharkhand High Court
Birendra Pradhan vs State Of Jharkhand on 24 August, 2009
Author: R.R.Prasad
Bench: R. R. Prasad
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
W.P.(Cr.) No.121 of 2009
Birendra Pradhan............................Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Jharkhand .................... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD
For the Petitioner : Mr.Rajesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.R.K.Singh, G.P.IV
Reserved on 20.8.2009 Pronounced on 24.8.2009
6. 24.8.09Through this writ application first information report of Jorapokhar P.S. case no.87 of 2009 instituted under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 427, 504, 379, 307 and section 171(A)/171(C) of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 27 of the Arms Act as well as under section 132/135(i)/135(a) of the R.P. Act and also first information report of Jorapokhar P.S. case no.88 of 2009 instituted under sections 147, 148, 149, 341,353,332, 427, 188, 379, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 132/132(ii) of the R.P. Act were sought to be quashed on the ground of same being lodged with mala fide but in course of hearing, one of the first information report which was lodged subsequently, i.e, first information report of Jorapokhar P.S. case no.88 of 2009 was sought to be quashed on the ground that institution of the second first information report for the commission of some offence in course of same transaction for which first information report had already been instituted, would be illegal.
It appears that one Ajay Kumar Dubey, lodged a first information report alleging therein that on 23.4.2009 at about 2 p.m. while Irshad and his friends had indulged themselves in casting bogus votes at booth no.220, they were objected but in the meantime, this petitioner who was a candidate of Lok Janshakri 2 Party (L.J.P) came along with others and exhorted others to kill the informant and thereupon he was assaulted badly by the associates of this petitioner and one of the miscreants also fired shot at him but fortunately it did not hit him and then, they ransacked the booth and also destroyed Electronic Voting Machine. Upon it a case was lodged as Jorapokhar P.S. case no.87 of 2009 under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 427, 504, 379, 307 and section 171(A)/171(C) of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 27 of the Arms Act as well as under section 132/135(i)/135(a) of the R.P.Act.
On the same day, one Mahavir Kharwar, Police Inspector, Jorapokhar Anchal, Dhanbad submitted a written report to the Officer-in-Charge of Jorapokhar Police Station alleging therein that on the occasion of parliamentary election while he was on duty on 23.4.2009, he received information that some of the accused persons have been putting obstruction in casting votes by the voters at booth no.220, he came over there at 2-2.15 p.m. and found some persons disturbing the process of voting and hence, he objected them from doing so but they did not pay any heed rather started assaulting one person. Meanwhile, this petitioner reached there and exhorted others to kill him and then they started assaulting him badly. When he tried to rescue him, someone pressed his neck and even tried to snatch his revolver as well as rifle of the Home guards and one of them took away his money kept in the pocket. On the basis of said report, Jorapokhar P.S. case no.88 of 2009 was instituted under sections 147, 148, 149, 341,353,332, 427, 188, 379, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 132/132(ii) of the R.P. Act.
3
Under the aforesaid situation, this writ application has been filed wherein in course of hearing second first information report lodged against the petitioner was sought to be quashed.
Mr.Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from the allegations made inboth the first information reports, it would be absolutely clear that the incident is the same which allegedly took place on the same day and at same time whereby the informant of Jorapokhar P.S. case no.87 of 2009 has been alleged to have been assaulted by the accused persons whereas in other case Police Inspector is said to have been assaulted. But once first information report was lodged on the basis of information received from the informant of the first case, any subsequent information or statement disclosing any commission of the offence which took place in the same incident cannot give rise to the second first information report, rather such statement would always be falling under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, institution of the second first information report is quite bad and hence, it is fit to be set aside.
On the other hand, Mr. R.K.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that upon receiving information from one Ajay Kumar Dubey about the commission of offence under the Peoples Representative Act and also with respect to his assault one F.I.R was lodged whereas second first information report was lodged on the allegation that Police Officer was assaulted by the accused persons with a view to kill him and the accused persons also tried to snatch his revolver and thereby accused persons committed offence under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and under this situation, both the incidents being distinct to each other cannot be said to have taken place in the same transaction. 4
An information regarding commission of the cognizable offence given in sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is commonly known as first information report (FIR). It sets the criminal law into motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under section 169 or 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the case may be, and when the police office finds sufficient materials, he after completion of the investigation forwards police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Quite oftenly it is being noticed that one or more informations are given to a police officer-in-charge of the police station in respect of same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case the Officer-in-Charge of a police station needs not to enter every one of them in the station house diary, rather all other information made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the first information report and entered into station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No such information/ statement can properly be treated as an F.I.R nor it can be entered into station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second first information report which cannot be in conformity with the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Further I do find that under the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure as transpires from the provisions as contained in Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the 5 requirements of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, there can be no second first information report and consequently one cannot take fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offence.
The aforesaid proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases including the case of T.T.Antony vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2001 SC 2637).
Coming to the fact of the case, it appears that in the same incident which allegedly took place on 23.4.2009 at about 2 p.m. to2.15 p.m.the accused persons in order to disturb the process of the polling allegedly assaulted the informant of the first case (Jorapokhar P.S case no.87 of 2009) and also the informant of the second case (Jorapokhar P.S. case no.88 of 2009) and for that, the police lodged two first information reports instead of lodging one first information report. Lodgment of the second F.I.R is quite illegal as the Officer-in-Charge after lodging the first information report of Jorapokhar P.S. case No.87 of 2009 could have easily recorded the statement of the informant of the second first information report which statement would have been falling under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been noticed above that the lodgment of the second first information report of the same incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences is against the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence, first information report of Jorapokhar P.S. case no.88 of 2009 is hereby quashed.
Notwithstanding the fact that F.I.R of Jorapokhar P.S. case no.88 of 2009 has been quashed, the Investigating Officer, who has been making investigation of the allegations made by the 6 informant upon which Jorapokhar P.S. case no. 87 of 2009 was lodged would always be duty bound to have statement of the informant of the second case and the witnesses which would be falling under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there would be no impediment in forwarding his report concerning the occurrence subject matter of the first information report as well as the occurrence subject matter of the second first information report under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
With the aforesaid observation, this writ application is disposed of.
( R.R.Prasad, J.) ND/