Jharkhand High Court
Vinod Kumar @ Binod Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand ….. Opposite … on 23 June, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[ 2025:JHHC:16831]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1343 of 2025
1.
Vinod Kumar @ Binod Yadav, aged about 22 years, S/o
Devendra Yadav @ Karu Yadav, R/o Asha Kothi, P.O.-
Nawagarh, P.S.-Barora, District-Dhanbad.
2. Shankar Mandal, aged about 43 years, S/o Bhagtu Mandal,
R/o-Barora Market, P.O.-Nawagarh, P.S.-Barora, District-
Dhanbad.
...... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
For the Petitioners : Mr. Deepak Sahu, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, 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. The brief that of his case is that this case, being the Madhuban
P.S. case no. 03 of 2025 has been registered, basing upon the
written report submitted by the Circle 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
1 Cr.M.P. No. 1343 of 2025
[ 2025:JHHC:16831]
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 ground 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, also came on motorcycles 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, 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,
2 Cr.M.P. No. 1343 of 2025
[ 2025:JHHC:16831]
after getting the information and after arrival of sufficient number
of forces; 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. Police force after
getting information reached there and tried to arrest the members
who were present there. 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 forcibly 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
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
3 Cr.M.P. No. 1343 of 2025
[ 2025:JHHC:16831]
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. case
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 Investigation4 Cr.M.P. No. 1343 of 2025
[ 2025:JHHC:16831]& 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.
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 SCC5 Cr.M.P. No. 1343 of 2025
[ 2025:JHHC:16831]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 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.
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 the6 Cr.M.P. No. 1343 of 2025
[ 2025:JHHC:16831]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 23rd June, 2025
Abhiraj /AFR7 Cr.M.P. No. 1343 of 2025