Jharkhand High Court
Chandan Kumar Rawani @ Chandan Rawani vs The State Of Jharkhand ….. Opposite … on 12 June, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:15148]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1300 of 2025
1.
Chandan Kumar Rawani @ Chandan Rawani, son of
Shankar Rawani, aged about 36 years, resident of
Dharmabandh Basti, P.O. Malkera P.S. Madhuban,
District-Dhanbad
2. Dinesh Rawani, aged about 44 years, son of Bhuvan
Rawani, resident of Dharmaband Basti, P.O. Malkera,
P.S. Madhuban, District-Dhanbad
3. Chandan Kumar Mahato @ Chandan Mahto @ Shilpa,
aged about 29 years, son of Prahlad Mahato, resident of
Dharmaband Basti, P.O. Malkera, P.S. Madhuban,
District-Dhanbad
…… Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratik Sen , Adv.
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. PP
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNS, 2023 with a
prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal
proceeding including the First Information Report in connection
with Madhuban P.S. case no. 03 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 324 (5), 326 of the
BNS, 2023, pending in the court of learned JMFC, Dhanbad on the
ground that this is the second FIR in respect of same occurrence
for which, earlier Madhuban P.S. case no. 01 of 2025 and
Madhuban P.S. case no. 02 of 2025 have already been registered.
3. This case being the Madhuban P.S. case no. 03 of 2025 has been
registered, basing upon the written report submitted by the Circle
1 Cr.M.P. No. 1300 of 2025
[2025:JHHC:15148]
Inspector of Mahuda Circle office, alleging therein that on
09.01.2025 at about 10.30 AM, there was a fight between two
groups, one led by Karu Yadav and the other by Sheikh Guddu, to
have dominance over the Babudih colliery. There was arson,
firing, assaults and counter assaults between the members of the
two groups. On getting the information, the informant reached
the place of occurrence, along with the police force at about 11.00
AM and saw the occurrence. The fire was extinguished by the fire
engines and information was received that the supporters of Karu
Yadav have torched the AJSU party office. The informant also saw
the same. The persons present at the place, alleged that it is the
supporters of Karu Yadav who have committed the said
occurrence. Madhuban (Dharmabandh O.P.) P.S. case no. 01 of
2025 has been instituted upon written report submitted by the
Sub Inspector of Police – cum- In-charge Dharmabandh O.P.
alleging that on 09.01.2025, at 10.00 AM, the outsourcing company
of BCCL namely M/s Hilltop company for excavation of coal
started the work of demarcation of the land. The outsourcing
Hilltop company has sublet the work to Karu Yadav. The local
residents were opposing Karu Yadav for their own reasons. The
group of Karu Yadav was opposed by the group of Sheikh Tohid
@ Dablu. Subhash Singh is a AJSU supporter and with the help of
Subhash Singh and the villagers, the Hon’ble Member of
Parliament from Giridih, held meetings at the Babudih office and
BCCL area. At about 11.00 AM, about 100 persons of Karu Yadav,
61 of whom, have been named in FIR along with others, on
motorcycle and other vehicles, armed with deadly weapons,
reached Babudih place of work. From the other side, Sk. Tohid
along with about 100 persons, 61 of whom have been named in
FIR, also came on motorcycle and other vehicles, armed with
deadly weapons and opposed the work. The informant along with
armed forces and other officers reached the place of occurrence.
The informant tried to pacify the parties but both the parties did
not oblige the informant and started to abuse each other,
2 Cr.M.P. No. 1300 of 2025
[2025:JHHC:15148]
consequent upon exchange of abuse, there was assault, counter
assault, firing and blasting of bombs. Several vehicles were
damaged and torched. Subhash Singh sustained bullet injury on
his leg. More force reached at the place of occurrence, after getting
the information and after arrival of sufficient number of force; the
miscreants and accused persons, fled away and they were chased
away by the police personnel. Madhuban P.S. case no. 02 of 2025
has been instituted on the basis of the written report submitted by
the Sub-Inspector-cum- Officer -in-Charge of Madhuban police
station. He has also stated that on 09.01.2025 at 11.00 AM, there
was fight for dominance over Babudih colliery between two
groups, there was assault and counter assault, firing and arson.
The members of Karu Yadav group torched the office of AJSU and
vandalized the same. The members of Karu Yadav group
assembled in support of Karu Yadav. The police force after getting
information reached there and tried to arrest the members who
were present there. The police surrounded Karu Yadav and his
son Binod Yadav. They used criminal force against the police
personnel and deterred them from discharging their duty. The
wife of Karu Yadav and other persons made a murderous assault
upon the police team in an organized manner and took way Karu
Yadav and his son from the custody of police. In the stone pelting
that took place, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Baghmara,
sustained 2-3 stone injuries on his head and became injured and
fell down on the ground and taking advantage of the police party
paying their attention to the injured Sub-divisional police officer,
the miscreants including Karu Yadav and his son, fled away from
the place of occurrence.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in
Madhuban P.S. case no. 01 of 2025 during the same course of
transaction, this case also took place. It is next submitted that thus,
the institution of Madhuban P.S. case no. 03 of 2025 is an attempt
for a fresh investigation based on second or successive FIR, not
being a counter case, which is prohibited in law. It is next
3 Cr.M.P. No. 1300 of 2025
[2025:JHHC:15148]
submitted that FIR of Madhuban P.S. case no. 03 of 2025 is hit by
the provisions of Section 181 of the BNSS, 2023.
5. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Manish
Varma and Another vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another dated
06.05.2024, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.T. Antony v.
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 in
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)wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that
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
and submits that in this case also, the FIR of Madhuban P.S. case4 Cr.M.P. No. 1300 of 2025
[2025:JHHC:15148]no. 03 of 2025 having been filed in connection with the same and
connected cognizable offences, be quashed and set aside.
6. It is next submitted that, this Court in that case, 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, para 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 more cognizable
offences.” (Emphasis supplied)
7. It is next submitted that in that case, this Court also relied upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Others reported in (2004) 13
SCC 292 paragraph-17 of which reads as under:-
“17. It is clear from the words emphasised hereinabove in the above
quotation, this Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala
[(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] has not excluded the
registration of a complaint in the nature of a counter-case from the
purview of the Code. In our opinion, this Court in that case only held
that any further complaint by the same complainant or others against
the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited
under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have
already started and further complaint against the same accused will
amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original
complaint, hence will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code.
This prohibition noticed by this Court, in our opinion, does not apply
to counter-complaint by the accused in the first complaint or on his
behalf alleging a different version of the said incident.” (Emphasis
supplied)
8. It is next submitted that in that case, this Court also relied upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Tarak Dash Mukharjee & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2121.
5 Cr.M.P. No. 1300 of 2025
[2025:JHHC:15148]
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Ranjeet Kumar Rawani @ Ranjit
Rawani & Another vs. State of Jharkhand passed in Cr.MP no.
2367 of 2023 wherein this Court took note of Krishna Lal Chawla
& Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2021) 5 SCC
435 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated
the settled principle of law that the second FIR in respect of an
offence or different offences committed in the course of the same
transaction, is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as
prayed for in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, be
allowed.
10. Learned Spl. P.P appearing for the State fairly submits that the
occurrence for which, Madhuban P.S. case no. 03 of 2025 has been
registered, also finds place either in the FIR of Madhuban P.S. case
no. 01 of 2025 or Madhuban P.S. case no. 02 of 2025 and no new
fact has been alleged in the present case, though the informant is a
different person, hence it is submitted that at this nascent stage,
the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners ought not be allowed
and this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit,
be dismissed.
11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to
mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid
down the consequence test in its judgment in the case of C.
Muniappan & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2010) 9
SCC 567 according to which, 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. and 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.
12. It is a settled principle of law, as has been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in para 27 of the case of T.T. Antony v.
6 Cr.M.P. No. 1300 of 2025
[2025:JHHC:15148]
State of Kerala & Others (supra) that a second F.I.R. is
maintainable for a counter-case only. Now coming to the facts of
the case, as already discussed above, there is no new fact of
occurrence or offence has been alleged in FIR of Madhuban P.S.
case no. 03 of 2025; which has not been mentioned either in the
FIR of Madhuban P.S. case no. 01 of 2025 or in the FIR of
Madhuban P.S. case no. 02 of 2025. Thus, this Court is of the
considered view that FIR of Madhuban P.S. case no. 03 of 2025 is a
subsequent FIR in respect of the selfsame occurrence, for which
earlier, Madhuban P.S. case no. 01 of 2025 or Madhuban P.S. case
no. 02 of 2025 has been registered. Accordingly, the same is not
sustainable in law, being hit by the provisions of Section 181 of
BNSS, 2023. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal
proceeding including the First Information Report in connection
with Madhuban P.S. case no. 03 of 2025 be quashed and set aside
against the petitioners.
13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the First
Information Report in connection with Madhuban P.S. case no. 03
of 2025 is quashed and set aside against the petitioners.
14. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 12th June, 2025
Smita /AFR7 Cr.M.P. No. 1300 of 2025