Jharkhand High Court
Md Iqbal Hussain @ Md. Iqbal Husaain vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 16 July, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:19442)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1331 of 2024
------
Md Iqbal Hussain @ Md. Iqbal Husaain, aged about 53 years, son of
Late Md. Qamaruddin, resident of Mirza Gali Road, Uppar Kulhi,
P.O. & P.S. Jharia, Dist. Dhanbad … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
——
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : None
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. No one turns up on behalf of the State in spite of repeated calls.
3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated
23.04.2022 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has found
prima facie case against the petitioner in respect of the offences punishable
under Sections 406, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and took cognizance of the
said offences in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No.229 of 2020
corresponding to G.R. Case No.1179 of 2022.
4. The brief fact of the case is that Dhanbad P.S. Case No.306 of 2019 has
been registered by the police on the basis of the written report submitted by the
complainant/aggrieved persons alleging therein that the
complainant/aggrieved persons deposited their savings with the Department
of Post in the form of Senior Citizens Scheme and Monthly Investment Scheme
with various post offices within Dhanbad district. The petitioner was the Sub-
1 Cr. M.P. No.1331 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:19442)
Post Master of Manaitand Sub Post Office, in which some of deposits were
made. The co-accused Asha Devi was a postal agent through whom the
deposits were made. The complainant/informant gave his consent to transfer
the interest accrued under the Senior Citizens Accounts and MIS Accounts to
the recurring deposit accounts. The petitioner and the co-accused persons also
induced the informant/complainant to leave all the relevant documents so that
they could operate them in best interest of the informant. The informant never
withdrew any sum of money. When the MIS became due for maturity in
February, 2019, the complainant demanded the maturity value. The co-accused
did not provide the maturity value nor gave the relevant MIS book. Though the
daughter of the complainant/informant namely Suman Chatterjee never made
any application for premature withdrawal; yet money has been withdrawn
from the account of Suman Chatterjee, by the co-accused Ex-post Master Suresh
Dutta Tiwari, by way of premature withdrawal, without being authorized by
Suman Chatterjee or the complainant/informant. On being approached by the
informant, the co-accused- Suresh Dutta Tiwari apologetically stated that he,
being in acute need of money for his treatment, has withdrawn the amount and
issued post-dated cheques. On enquiry, the informant found that all his postal
investments in the shape of Senior Citizens Accounts and MIS Accounts have
been prematurely withdrawn and misappropriated by the petitioner and the
co-accused persons. The co-accused in connivance inter alia with the petitioner
allegedly was involved in illegal premature withdrawal and misappropriation
of the money by Suresh Dutta Tiwari. On the basis of the said written report
submitted by the informant, Dhanbad P.S. Case No.306 of 2019 was registered
inter alia against the petitioner. Though the petitioner was not named in the
2 Cr. M.P. No.1331 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:19442)
F.I.R. of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.306 of 2019 but after investigation of the case,
police submitted charge-sheet inter alia against the petitioner for having
committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A,
120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 138 of N.I. Act and in
this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court
towards the copy of the charge-sheet filed by the police in the said Dhanbad
P.S. Case No.306 of 2019, the copy of the which has been kept at Annexure-1
page-6 onwards of the Supplementary Affidavit dated 09.06.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court
in the case of the co-accused Asha Devi passed in Cr.M.P. No.2415 of 2020
dated 12th November, 2024 and submits that in that case, this Court quashed
the entire criminal proceeding qua the co-accused Asha Devi, as this case is the
second F.I.R. in respect of the self-same occurrence in respect of which
Dhanbad P.S. Case No.229 of 2020 has been registered. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah
v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348
paragraph-58.3 of which reads as under:-
“58.3. Even after filing of such a report, if he comes into possession
of further information or material, there is no need to register a fresh
FIR, he is empowered to make further investigation normally with
the leave of the court and where during further investigation, he
collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to
forward the same with one or more further reports which is evident
from sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code. Under the scheme of
the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173
of the Code, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the
commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of
Section 154 of the Code. Thus, there can be no second FIR and,
consequently, there can be no 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 more3 Cr. M.P. No.1331 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:19442)cognizable offences.” (Emphasis supplied)
and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
reiterated the consequent test as has been explained in the case of C.
Muniappan & Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567,
i.e. if an offence forming part of the second F.I.R. arises as a consequence of the
offence alleged in the first F.I.R. then, the offences covered by both the F.I.Rs
are the same and accordingly the second F.I.R. will be impermissible in law or
in other words, the offence covered in both the F.I.Rs shall have to be treated as
part of the first F.I.R. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
be allowed.
6. No one turns up on behalf of the State of Jharkhand in spite of repeated
calls.
7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner
made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the
record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has
been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T. T. Antony
vs. State of Kerala & Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, paragraph-27 of
which reads as under:-
“27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens
under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive
power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be
struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that
subsection (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make
further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and
documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the
Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri)
479] it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to
conduct further investigation with the permission of the court.
However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant
subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in4 Cr. M.P. No.1331 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:19442)respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable
offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before
or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would
clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a
case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case.
In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or
successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with
the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been
committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of
which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or
final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the
Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section
482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.”
(Emphasis supplied)
that a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs,
not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected
cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same
transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the F.I.R either investigation is
under way or Final Report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the
Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
8. It is also a settled principle of law that if the substratum of the two F.I.Rs
are common, the mere addition of Sections 467, 468 and 471 in the subsequent
F.I.R cannot be considered as different ingredients to justify the latter F.I.R as
being based on different materials, allegations and grounds as has been held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prem Chand Singh vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2020) 3 SCC 54 paragraph-11 of
which reads as under:-
“11. It is, therefore, apparent that the subject-matter of both the
FIRs is the same general power of attorney dated 2-5-1985 and the
sales made by the appellant in pursuance of the same. If the
substratum of the two FIRs are common, the mere addition of
Sections 467, 468 and 471 in the subsequent FIR cannot be
considered as different ingredients to justify the latter FIR as being5 Cr. M.P. No.1331 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:19442)based on different materials, allegations and grounds.” (Emphasis
supplied)
9. Now coming to the facts of the case, this Court, after going through the
two F.I.R.s, is of the considered view that the allegation made in the F.I.R of
Dhanbad P.S. Case No.229 of 2020 is that the petitioner being the then Sub-Post
Master of Manaitand Sub Post Office, has committed criminal breach of trust
and cheating in respect of the said deposits by the informant and his family
members but the only difference is that in this case, the informant is the Postal
Superintendent of Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad, while in the earlier case, the
victim was the informant. Thus, after going through the two F.I.Rs, this Court is
of the considered view that the F.I.R. of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.229 of 2020 is
the second F.I.R. in respect of the self-same occurrence, for which Dhanbad P.S.
Case No.306 of 2019 has already been registered. There is no discovery made on
actual foundations in the F.I.R. of Dhanbad P.S. No.229 of 2020 and no distinct
offence is made out in the F.I.R. of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.229 of 2020.
10. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of
Dhanbad P.S. Case No.229 of 2020 against the petitioner who is an accused
person of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.306 of 2020 is hit by the provisions of Section
162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thus, continuation of the F.I.R. of
Dhanbad P.S. Case No.229 of 2020 qua the petitioner, will amount to abuse of
process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding
including the order dated 23.04.2022 by which the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dhanbad has found prima facie case against the petitioner under
Sections 406, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and took cognizance of the said
offences in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No.229 of 2020 corresponding to
6 Cr. M.P. No.1331 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:19442)
G.R. Case No.1179 of 2022, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate,
Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside.
11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated
23.04.2022 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has found
prima facie case against the petitioner under Sections 406, 420, 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and took cognizance of the said offences in connection with
Dhanbad P.S. Case No.229 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1179 of 2022,
pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, is quashed and
set aside qua the petitioner.
12. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 16th of July, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
7 Cr. M.P. No.1331 of 2024