Jharkhand High Court
Niranjan Sharma vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 28 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006CRILJ301, 2005 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 2184, 2006 CRI. L. J. 301, (2005) 36 ALLINDCAS 332 (JHA), 2005 (36) ALLINDCAS 332, (2005) 3 EASTCRIC 501, (2005) 4 CURCRIR 319
Author: Hari Shankar Prasad
Bench: Hari Shankar Prasad
ORDER Hari Shankar Prasad, J.
1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the first information report of Jamtara (Mihijam) P.S. Case No. 6/ 2004 dated 11.1.2004 under Section 407 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Facts leading to the filing of this application are that earlier to this first information report, one more first information report was lodged at Chirkunda P.S., which was drawn up on the written report, dated 2.6.2003, of Niranjan Agarwal to the effect that Niranjan Agarwal is carrying on the business of transporting goods and the same was being done in the name of his firm M/s Allied Carriers, Dhanbad. On 15.5.2002 at about 6.30 AM he received a call from one Sharmaji of S.S. Roadways of Bokaro that he supplies vehicles on rent for Haryana and as such, on enquiry from him, it appears that the charges for the same to be taken to Hissar in Haryana. The charges were settled at Rs. 1,110/- per tonne and he requested this petitioner to get the goods loaded on truck No. HR-37-1127 and that he had told him that truck was parked near Rampur Checkpost in West Bengal. The informant, as alleged, had sent his employee Dilip Verma to the said place and contacted the driver namely Munna Singh of the said truck. Thereafter the driver had called on telephone No. 286824 of S.S. Roadways , Bokaro and then he had taken the truck to M/s Ferro Alloys Ltd, which is situated within Mihijam P.S. for loading the goods. It is further stated that the informant has again rang up S.S. Roadways and gave this information. Thereafter the truck was loaded with 600 packets of M.C.C. Silko Manganese weighing 300240 MTs valued at Rs. 11,65,000/-to be delivered the same at Bajaj Dycam, Hissar in Haryana. It is further stated that along with the factory challan, goods were also handed over with the Excise Invoice. After loading, the same truck was brought at Chirkunda transporting office of the informant, where the informant is alleged to have verified all the documents of the truck in question and thereafter he had taken the signature of the driver. He had paid a sum of Rs. 26,500/- out of the total charges of Rs. 33,300/- as advance to the driver and he instructed him that the balance charges are to be collected from the consignee after the delivery of the goods. It is further stated that on 28.5.2003 the informant received a telephonic call from Anand Ferro Alloys Ltd. that the goods have not been delivered as yet and thereafter the informant has rung up the S.S. Roadways, Bokaro on the telephone No. 286824 but he could not talk with Sri Sharma, the petitioner. He had also tried to contact the numbers of the owner of the said truck as given to him by the driver but he did not get any response from there. It is also stated that he received a letter on 29.5.2003 from M/s Anand Ferro Alloys and then he had sent his staff to enquire about the vehicle but he could not know anything and in such circumstances, informant lodged the first information report against this petitioner as well as against the driver and the owner of the truck in question, on the basis of which a first information report was drawn up and police took up the investigation of the case. Petitioner was arrested in due course and ultimately he was granted bail by the High Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the goods had been supplied by M/s Anand Ferro Alloys Ltd, which is situated in the district of Jamtara on the information given by M/s Anand Ferro Alloys Ltd. of Mihijam. The informant of Chirkunda Police Station case had taken action in this matter against this petitioner, the driver and the owner of the truck in question and the police had been proceeding with the same and it was regarding this very consignment. This case had been originally started on the basis of a complaint, which is P.C.R. No. 304/2003 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on receipt of this complaint petition, had forwarded the same to the officer-in-charge of Jamtara Police Station for drawing up the first information report and to take up investigation of the case and accordingly the first information report was drawn up and case was taken up for investigation.
4. Further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that this FIR has been registered on the basis of same materials which were loaded on the truck in question as contained in Annexure 1 and the difference in between both the FIRs is that the owner of Allied Carrier has not been made out an accused in the case, who was informant in Annexure- 1 and according to the complainant of this case, the transporter of Allied Carrier of Chirkunda was engaged by the company for the last more than 10 years for carrying on the manufactured materials to different industries and in that connection, he had also contacted this very firm for the purpose of carrying the same to Hissar and other facts are similar to that as alleged in Chirkunda P.S. Case No.76/2003.
5. It is also mentioned in the instant FIR that for the same occurrence a case has already been instituted at Chirkunda P.S. in the district of Dhanbad and the present complaint petition should have been forwarded to CJM, Dhanbad, who may have forwarded the same to the police station in question to amalgamate the same with the first FIR and in no circumstance, for the same occurrence and for the same consignment two FIRs should have been drawn up and in such circumstances, the petitioner should not have been put to double jeopardy, which is completely prohibited by both Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Constitution of India. The drawing up of the instant FIR is wholly without jurisdiction and is contrary to the Constitution and hence it is fit to be quashed. It is also submitted that for the same occurrence Chirkunda P.S. Case No.76/ 2003 has been drawn up and investigation in that case is being conducted and second FIR for the same occurrence and materials should not have been instituted at Jamtara P.S. and simultaneously investigation should not have been started. It is also submitted that petitioner should not be made an accused for the second time in this very case and, therefore, continuance of the instant FIR will be an abuse of the process of court.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 2, from perusal of which it appears that the accused of these two cases are different, for which two different cases have been started, in which informant is the different person and the place of occurrence is different. It is further stated that place of occurrence of Jamtara (Mihijam) P.S. No.06/2004 is village Butcheries, P.S. Mihijam, from where of the silicon Manganese of 600 bags were lifted by the accused persons and the investigation is going on, whereas place of occurrence of Chirkunda P.S. Case No. 76/2003 is Galangal, near school at Chirkunda, District Dhanbad and both the cases are under the investigation and no final form has yet been submitted and at present, when the cases are at the stage of investigation, the FIR, which has been lodged at Jamtara P.S. being Jamtara P.S. Case No. 06/2004 cannot be quashed.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in course of submission, placed reliance upon 2001 (2) JLJR 550 (SC), in which it has been held that sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time different investigation by the police in respect of the same incident. A case of fresh investigation based on the second FIR, not being a counter case, filed in connection with same/connected cognizable offence, is a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the Court. It was submitted that here in the instant case also one case was lodged at Chirkunda for the same occurrence and another FIR has been lodged after some days at Jamtara, which is connected with the same occurrence and in one case if A is informant and he files a case against B then C files a case making A and B both accused in the case and here also the petitioner is accused in both the cases lodged on the basis of both the FIRs and, therefore, one of the FIR, so far as this petitioner is concerned, has to be quashed.
8. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that place of occurrence has been shown at Jamtara and, therefore, at the preliminary stage of investigation, no interference need be passed and such interference will make the investigation jeopardized and, therefore, the action has rightly been taken.
9. After having considered the submissions of both the sides and going through the materials on record and also the case law cited on behalf of the petitioner, I am of the view that second FIR lodged against this petitioner needs interference, as for the same occurrence the petitioner cannot be harassed twice or he cannot be made accused of both FIRs in respect of the same matter or connected matters.
10. In that view of the matter, this application is allowed and entire FIR of Jamtara (Mihijam) P.S. Case No. 6/2004 dated 11.1.2004, so far as this petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed.