Dismissed

Ranjay Mani Tiwari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Oct 2023Cr.M.P./1143/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition challenged the quashing of proceedings for illegal possession of arms. The court held that the present FIR regarding seizure of a pistol in the petitioner's house was distinct from an earlier FIR involving an attempt to murder, thus dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed, and the proceedings under the Arms Act are set on foot.

Ranjay Mani Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 1143 of 2019

¶3

Ranjay Mani Tiwari .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepankar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha, APP

¶6

08/ 04.10.2023 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

2 . The instant Cr. M. P. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 14.07.2017 passed by learned J.M. 1^st Class, Jamshedpur, in Telco P.S. Case No.104 of 2017 (G.R. No.1315 of 2017) whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence has been taken under Sections 25(1-B)A, 26, 35 of the Arms Act.

¶8

3 . As per the FIR lodged on 10.05.2017 by the Police officer on the basis of written report lodged by one Shailendra Kumar Singh, Telco P.S. Case No.103 of 2017 under Sections 341/323/307/385/387/427/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered. During course of investigation, a raid was conducted in the house of Ranjay Mani Tiwari and Sanjay Mani Tripathi in which one country-made pistol with three live cartridges were seized from the house of said Ranjay Mani Tiwari.

¶9

4. On the basis of written report, Police registered a separate case vide Telco P.S. Case No.104 of 2017 and after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken which is under-challenge in the instant Cr. M. P.

¶10

5 . It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that institution of the present FIR being the Second FIR is hit by ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of

¶11

T. T. Anthony vs. State of Kerala & Ors , reported in 2001(6) SCC 181 .

¶12

6 . It is further submitted that both the cases /FIRs arise out of the same fact and situation, as such, the instant FIR including the order taking cognizance may be quashed.

¶13

7 . Learned APP for the State has opposed the quashing petition. It is submitted that the present case has been filed under the Arms Act for illegal possession of the Arms and the cartridges in the house of the petitioner whereas in the earlier FIR, the cognizance has been taken inter-alia under Section 27 of the Arms Act and other Sections of the IPC which is for the use of fire-arm. Therefore, it cannot be said that fact situation for both the cases are the same and common. Further, the place of occurrence with respect to the offence for earlier case and the present one is also different. The place of recovery in the present case is in the North Eastern part of

¶14

¶15

the house of Ranjay Mani Tiwari, whereas the place of recovery in the earlier case is situated in the house of Shailendra Kumar Singh.

¶16

8 . Considering the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, this Court is of the view that recovery of fire-arm which is the basis of the present case cannot be said to constitute the same offence for which the second FIR has been lodged. The First FIR was lodged for making attempt to commit murder of Shailendra Kumar Singh in which firing was resorted to whereas in the present case is with respect to recovery of fire-arm and its seizure from the house of one of the co-accused.

¶17

Under the circumstances, in view of the fact that both are distinct offences and, therefore, it cannot be said that both the FIRs have been lodged with respect to the same and similar offence.

¶18

Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the instant Cr. M. P. and the same is dismissed.

¶19

( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )

¶20

Sandeep/

¶21

Uploaded.

Ranjay Mani Tiwari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjay Mani Tiwari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Wasi Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Sarfaraj Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Deptt of Revenue and Land Reforms

Sayaid MD Salim Uddin Vs the State of Jharkhand

Motilal Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt Vimla Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand