Naresh Sharma Aged About 62 Years Son Of … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 March, 2025

Jharkhand High Court

Naresh Sharma Aged About 62 Years Son Of … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 March, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              W.P. (Cr.) No.200 of 2024
                                           ------

1. Naresh Sharma aged about 62 years son of Late Karu.

2. Prakash Kumar Sharma @ Prakash Sharma aged about 32 years
son of Naresh Sharma.

Sl. No. 1 & 2 residence of Near Hirak Road, Dhangi More,
Surya Vihar, Naryanpur, Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, P.O.-

            Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad               ...          Petitioners
                                            Versus
            The State of Jharkhand               ...                  Respondent
                                            ------
             For the Petitioners       : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
             For the State             : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II
                                         Ms. Sweta Shukla, AC to AAG II
                                              ------
                                        PRESENT
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:-    Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed with a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for

quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the F.I.R. being

Saraidhela P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that this F.I.R. has

been lodged in respect of the same occurrence for which earlier Saraidhela P.S.

Case No.144 of 2019 has been registered.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the Saradihela P.S. Case No.144 of 2019

was registered upon the written application submitted by the informant of that

case namely Md. Ekramul Ansari, with the allegation that the petitioners were

forcibly making the brother of the informant namely Sonu Ansari to do the

1 W.P. (Cr.) No.200 of 2024
marble work in their house. The petitioners told the deceased to join the naked

wires of the motor. When the deceased went to join the wires, the petitioners

switched on the motor, by which the deceased sustained electric shock and fell

inside the safety tank and died. The present F.I.R. being Saraidhela P.S. Case

No.26 of 2024 has been instituted on the basis of the written application of the

same person being Md. Ekramul Ansari alleging therein that the co-accused

Nasim Ansari took the deceased- Sonu Ansari to work in the house of the

petitioners. The petitioners by using force, told the deceased- Sonu Ansari to

join the naked wires. Sonu Ansari refused to do so; but the petitioners along

with the co-accused person namely Md. Nasim Ansari forced the deceased to

join the wires. The deceased went to join naked wires and the petitioners

deliberately switched on the motor, by which the deceased sustained electric

shock and fell down in a safety tank. He was admitted to P.M.C.H. where he

died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the F.I.R. of Saraidhela

P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

as this is the second F.I.R., for the same cause of action, in respect of which

Saraidhela P.S. Case No.144 of 2019 has already been registered. It is further

submitted that the police after investigation of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.144 of

2019, has submitted Final Form and did not send up the petitioners for trial and

the same was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad but

no protest petition was filed in the said case. It is next submitted that the co-

accused Md. Nasim Ansari who faced the trial in connection with Saraidhela

P.S. Case No.144 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No.1463 of 2020, was acquitted

vide judgment dated 26.09.2023. Hence, it is submitted that continuation of

2 W.P. (Cr.) No.200 of 2024
criminal proceedings of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 against the

petitioners, will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is submitted

that the prayer, as prayed for in this Writ Petition (Cr.), be allowed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State on the other hand

vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in this Writ Petition (Cr.)

but fairly submits that for the self-same occurrence, the F.I.R. in respect of

Saraidhela P.s. Case No.144 of 2019 was lodged and this case has also been

lodged for the self-same occurrence.

6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going

through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here

that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tarak Das Mukherjee

& Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 1400 of 2022

dated 23.08.2022, paragraph-12 of which reads and under:

“12. If multiple First Information Reports by the same person
against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect
of the same set of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused
getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same
alleged offence. Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is
nothing but abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the act of the
registration of such successive FIRs on the same set of facts and
allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the
scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The
settled legal position on this behalf has been completely ignored by
the High Court.” (Emphasis supplied)

therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled

principle of law that if multiple First Information Reports by the same person

against the same accused are not permitted to be registered in respect of the

same set of facts and allegations, as the same will result in the accused getting

entangled in multiple criminal proceedings, for the same alleged offence.

3 W.P. (Cr.) No.200 of 2024

Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the

process of law.

7. 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 sub-
section (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)

therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that a 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

4 W.P. (Cr.) No.200 of 2024
case for exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Upkar Singh vs. Ved

Prakash & Others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292, paragraph-17 of which reads

and 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)

has also reiterated the said principle of law 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.

9. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that for

the self-same alleged occurrence in respect of which Saraidhela P.S. Case No.26

of 2024 has been registered; earlier for the self-same allegation, Saraidhela P.S.

Case No.144 of 2019 was also registered.

5 W.P. (Cr.) No.200 of 2024

10. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that

the F.I.R. of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 is hit by Section 162 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the continuation of the criminal

proceeding of the same against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process

of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings

including the F.I.R. being Saraidhela P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 be quashed and

set aside.

11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the F.I.R. being

Saraidhela P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 is quashed and set aside.

12. In the result, this Writ Petition (Cr.), stand allowed.

13. In view of disposal of the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), the interim order

granted vide order dated 20.03.2024, is vacated.

14. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 04th of March, 2025
AFR/ Animesh

6 W.P. (Cr.) No.200 of 2024