The High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an order taking cognizance in a subsequent criminal complaint related to the same occurrence. The Court distinguished T.T. Anthony, held that the second complaint established a prima facie case, and found no grounds to quash proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No.1119 of 2010
| .......... Petitioners. -Versus- |
|---|
| 1. The State of Jharkhand. |
| 2. Bibhisan Mahato. .......... Opp. Parties. ----- |
| CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- |
| For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate |
| For the State : APP |
| For O.P. No.2 : Mr. R. C. P. Sah, Advocate ----- |
| Order No.06 Date: 02.04.2019 |
Complaint Case No.C1-9/2004 has been filed by the opposite party no.2 alleging, inter alia, that the complainant is the owner of one Tata Spacio Vehicle bearing registration no.JH-05D-7040, which was used to carry staff of S.B.I. and Civil Court from Jamshedpur to Saraikella and back. On many occasions, the vehicle was used by the S.B.I., Saraikella to bring and remit huge cash amount to other branches of the bank. Being aware of the above facts, the petitioners told the helper- Bahadur Mahato and the driver- Pawan Mahto to stop the vehicle at specified place on the signal for the purpose of plundering the cash amount, but they refused to do so due to which the petitioners threatened the driver and helper of the vehicle of the complainant with dire consequence. On 14.01.2004, the vehicle of the opposite party no.2 was taken to village Bandhdih by driver Pawan Mahato, helper Bahadur Mahato, his uncle Chinibas Mahato and Shankar Mahato where Chinibas Mahto was to meet his brother-in-law.
-2-
As soon as the vehicle stopped near the house of Bindu Mahatobrother-in-law of Chinibas Mahato, the petitioners surrounded the vehicle and dragged Bahadur Mahato out of the vehicle. The petitioners were armed with Lathi and started assaulting him mercilessly causing several injuries on his person. When Chinibas Mahato went to save Bahadur Mahato, he was also brutally assaulted. Pawan Mahato and Shankar Mahato fled away on seeing the petitioners assaulting Bahadur Mahato and his uncle. The petitioners murdered Bahadur Mahato and caused serious injury to Chinibas Mahato. The petitioners also set fire Tata Spacio vehicle of the opposite party no.2. For the alleged incident two first information reports were lodged. Firstly Seraikella P.S Case No.3 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. no.33 of 2004 was lodged on the basis of the fardbeyan of the Bijay Mahato (petitioner no.1) wherein after investigation the police submitted charge sheet under Sections 147/149/323/307 of the Indian Penal Code, which ended in terms with the judgment dated 30.06.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella holding accused Chunnu Mahato, Hiru Mahato, Shankar Mahato @ Shambhu Mahato, Pawan Mahato and Chinibas Mahato guilty of the offence under Sections 147 and 323 of IPC and they were released on probation bond of Rs.5000/- with one surety of like amount each under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to maintain peace and good behavior for a period of one year. Another first information report being Seraikella P.S Case No.4 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No.34 of 2004, was registered on the basis of the self-recorded statement of the Sub Inspector of Police, namely, Ashok Kumar wherein the police submitted final form under Sections 435, 427, 304, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. It was alleged in the complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 that one of the injured witnesses, namely, Chinibas Mahato had disclosed the name of the petitioners before the police who were involved in the alleged crime, however, the same was ignored by the police while submitting final form.
-3-
-4-
cognizance of the offences against the petitioners in a mechanical manner and failed to appreciate that no occurrence as alleged took place and thus the order taking cognizance is bad in law.
“18. An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 CrPC is commonly known as first information report (FIR) though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important document. And as its nickname suggests it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station. It sets the criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 CrPC. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more informations than one are given to a police officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in Section 154 CrPC. Apart from a vague information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the first information report — FIR postulated by Section 154 CrPC. All other informations made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the first information report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 CrPC. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an FIR and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of CrPC. Take a case where an FIR mentions cognizable offence under Section 307 or 326 IPC and the investigating agency learns during the investigation or receives fresh information that the victim died, no fresh FIR under Section 302 IPC need be registered which will be irregular; in such a case alteration of the provision of law in the first FIR is the proper course to adopt. Let us consider a different situation in which H having killed W, his wife, informs the police that she is killed by an unknown person or knowing that W is killed by his mother or sister, Howns up the responsibility and during investigation the truth is detected; it does not require filing of fresh FIR against H — the real offender — who can be arraigned in the report under Section 173(2) or 173(8) CrPC, as the case may be. It is of course permissible for the investigating officer to send up a report to the Magistrate concerned even earlier that investigation is being directed against the person suspected to be the accused.
-5-
20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. 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. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC.”
-6-
Magistrate shall stay the proceeding of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting investigation and if the report is made by the investigating officer under Section 173 disclosing the commission of cognizable offence by the person who is also an accused in the complaint case, the magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on the police report. Clause (3) of Section 210 of Cr.P.C provide that where the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial which was stayed by him in accordance with the provisions of this code.
-7-
subsequent stage in terms with the provisions of Cr.P.C. It is a settled proposition of law that while considering the case for quashing of a criminal proceeding, the High Court should not put an appropriate prosecution to an end prematurely unless there are compelling circumstances to do so.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/AFR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order taking cognizance pursuant to a second complaint for the same occurrence is liable to be quashed under Article 226/Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the ratio of T.T. Anthony regarding prohibition of second FIR is applicable when the prosecution relies on a subsequent complaint filed during pendency of police investigation.
Whether a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners to sustain the quashing petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
T.T. Anthony & Others Vs. State of KeralaDistinguished¶25
T.T. Anthony & Others Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 · Who else cites this
Section 210 of Cr.P.C.Referred¶28
Section 482 Cr.P.C.Referred¶31
Bijay Mahato and others
The State of Jharkhand
Bibhisan Mahato
RAJESH SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
