Allowed¶36

Anil Kumar Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Apr 2026Cr.M.P./1933/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC (Ranchi), Cr.M.P. No.1933 of 2020, decided 09.04.2026 (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.): Second F.I.R. (Dhanbad P.S. Case No.237 of 2020) for the same occurrence as earlier Dhanbad P.S. Case No.123 of 2019 (embezzlement/excess payments to M/s Vayam Technologies Ltd.) held to be an abuse of process; entire prosecution from Case No.237 of 2020 quashed qua petitioner Anil Kumar Mandal under Section 482 CrPC, relying on T. T. Antony, (2001) 6 SCC 181, para 27.

What did the court decide?

Entire prosecution arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.237 of 2020, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, quashed and set aside qua the petitioner (Anil Kumar Mandal); the Cr.M.P. stands allowed. ¶36

Anil Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the F.I.R. in Dhanbad P.S. Case No.237 of 2020 is a second F.I.R. in respect of the same occurrence already covered by the earlier Dhanbad P.S. Case No.123 of 2019, and whether the entire prosecution arising out of it ought to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 qua the petitioner.

¶12

Court's answer

Adopting para 27 of T. T. Antony vs. State of Kerela, (2001) 6 SCC 181, this Court holds that fresh investigation based on a second or successive F.I.R., not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence committed in the course of the same transaction — where pursuant to the first F.I.R. either investigation is under way or a Final Report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate — may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Both the F.I.R. of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.237 of 2020 and the F.I.R. of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.123 of 2019 relate to the same occurrence of embezzlement of Government funds by making excess payment to M/s Vayam Technologies Ltd. without the articles/computer peripherals being supplied.

¶30

Key takeaways

Both F.I.R.s have been registered in connection with the same and connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction.ratio¶30
Registration of such multiple F.I.R.s in respect of the same occurrence is nothing but an abuse of process of law.ratio¶30
This is a fit case where the entire prosecution arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.237 of 2020, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner named above.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Second F.I.R. — Petitioner, Assistant-cum-Accountant of Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, sought quashing of the entire prosecution arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.237 of 2020, registered on a written report regarding irregularities in supply of computer peripherals for the E-Governance work of the Corporation (recording payment of Rs.8,28,97,418/- to M/s Vayam Technologies Ltd.), on the ground that an earlier F.I.R., Dhanbad P.S. Case No.123 of 2019, already stood registered against Manish Kumar, Urban Reforms Specialist, for the same occurrence of embezzlement of Government money by excess payment of Rs.2,65,04,668/- to M/s Vayam Technologies Ltd. Referring to para 27 of T. T. Antony vs. State of Kerela, (2001) 6 SCC 181, held: both F.I.R.s relate to the same occurrence and have been registered in connection with the same and connected cognizable offence committed in the course of the same transaction; registration of such multiple F.I.R.s is nothing but an abuse of process of law; fresh investigation based on a second or successive F.I.R., not being a counter-case, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the entire prosecution arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.237 of 2020, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, was quashed and set aside qua the petitioner, and the Cr.M.P. was allowed.

¶1

(2026:JHHC:10206)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1933 of 2020

¶3

------

¶4

Anil Kumar Mandal, Aged about 37 years, Son of Late Bramdev Mandal, Resident of C-8, NAC, NAC Colony, Domgarh, Near Hanuman Mandir, Gandhi Nagar, Domgarh, Sindri, P.O. & P.S. – Sindri, District Dhanbad (PIN 828122) … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

… The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party

¶7

For the Petitioner : Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Sabi Uddin, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, Addl. P.P.

¶8

------

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶12

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire prosecution arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.237 of 2020 on the ground that for the same offence, earlier Dhanbad P.S. Case No.123 of 2019 having been lodged, this F.I.R. is the second F.I.R. in respect of the same occurrence.

¶13

The brief facts of the case is that the F.I.R. relating to the present case i.e., Dhanbad P.S. Case No.237 of 2020 has been instituted on the basis of the written-report submitted by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner with present post Deputy Administrator, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation alleging therein that the Joint Secretary in the Urban Development and Housing Department of the Government of Jharkhand has intimated to lodge separate First Information Reports in respect of the irregularities committed in supply of the computer

¶14

¶15

Cr. M.P. No.1933 of 2020

¶16

(2026:JHHC:10206)

¶17

peripherals and other instruments for the E-Governance work of the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation. Hence, this F.I.R. has been registered in respect of the petitioner being the Assistant-cum-Accountant of Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, at the relevant time; on the basis of the written report submitted by the Special Allocation Officer, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, wherein it has been mentioned that Manish Kumar- who was the Urban Reforms Specialist of the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, paid Rs.8,28,97,418/- to M/s Vayam Technologies Ltd. and the role played by the petitioner therein is that at the relevant time, the petitioner being the accountant, without matching the peripherals with the bills, hastily produced the file for payment.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court towards page-6 of the Supplementary Affidavit dated 21.10.2020 and submits that the same is the copy of the certified copy of the F.I.R. of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.123 of 2019 and the said F.I.R. has been registered against Manish KumarUrban Reforms Specialist for having embezzled Government money by way of cheating and committing forgery for the purpose of cheating by using forged documents as genuine by making excess payment of Rs.2,65,04,668/- to M/s Vayam Technologies Ltd. It is next submitted that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Ishtiaque @ Lalo vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in Cr.M.P. No.2196 of 2018 dated 30.06.2020 relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T. T. Antony vs. State of Kerela reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 and on the case of Babu Bhai vs. State of Gujarat & Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254 in support of the settled principle of law, that there can be no second F.I.R and no fresh investigation of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence, same

¶19

¶20

Cr. M.P. No.1933 of 2020

¶21

(2026:JHHC:10206)

¶22

occurrence or same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable cases. It is further submitted that in this case though the F.I.R. has been registered but charge-sheet has not yet been submitted and though the State Urban Development Authority terminated the contract of the said M/s Vayam Technologies Ltd. but the said order was challenged by M/s Vayam Technologies Ltd. in W.P. (C) No.1036 of 2018 and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the said termination of the contract and debarment of the contractor. It is further submitted that admittedly the F.I.R. has been registered because of some mistaken notion that separate F.I.R. is to be registered in respect of each of the involved officer or member of staff. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

¶23

Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to refer paragph-27 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T. T. Antony vs. State of Kerela (supra) which reads as under:-

¶24

“ 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

¶25

¶26

Cr. M.P. No.1933 of 2020

¶27

(2026:JHHC:10206)

¶28

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)

¶29

that fresh investigation based on the second or successive F.I.Rs, 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 Cr.P.C or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

After going through the contents of both the F.I.Rs., this Court has no hesitation in holding that both the F.I.Rs. being the F.I.R. of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.237 of 2020 and the F.I.R. of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.123 of 2019 relate to the same occurrence of embezzlement of Government funds by making excess payment to the said M/s Vayam Technologies Ltd. without the articles/computer peripherals being supplied. Thus, both these F.I.Rs. have been registered in connection with the same and connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the registration of such multiple F.I.Rs., is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire prosecution arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.237 of 2020 which is now

¶31

¶32

Cr. M.P. No.1933 of 2020

¶33

(2026:JHHC:10206)

¶34

pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad be quashed and set aside qua against the petitioner named above.

¶35

Accordingly, the entire prosecution arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.237 of 2020 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is quashed and set aside qua against the petitioner named above.

¶36

In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.

¶37

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶38

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 09^th of April, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 13/04/2026

¶39

¶40

Cr. M.P. No.1933 of 2020

Anil Kumar Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinki Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kachu Munda Vs State of Jharkhand

Shivam Sharma Alias Shivam Alias Shivam Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sandeep Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Balrup Yadav Alias Balroop Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mani Shankar Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand