1 W.P. (Cr.) No. 144 of 2024 and allied cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 295 of 2024 Abhay Kumar, aged about 34, S/o Sudhir Kumar Jha, R/o Heera Sadan- 184, Lohiya Nagar, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Godda. ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sunil Kumar, S/o Ram Sunder Ram, R/o Nawatand, P.O. & P.S.- Nawdiha Bazar, Dist. Palamau. ….. Respondents With W.P. (Cr.) No. 144 of 2024 Shambhu Kumar Singh, aged about 44 years, S/o Jai Prakash Singh at Present R/o Hariom Nand Tower near Kathalmore, P.O & P.S -Nagri, Dist. Ranchi, Permanent R/o Village Shivpur, P.O -Badlutola, P.S-Muffasil, Dist. -Saran (Bihar). ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sunil Kumar, S/o Ram Sunder Ram, R/o Nawatand, P.O. & P.S.- Nawdiha Bazar, Dist. Palamau. ….. Respondents With W.P. (Cr.) No. 313 of 2024 Swapan Kumar Mahato @ Sapan Kumar Mahto, aged about 49 yrs., S/o Babu Lal Mahato R/o House No. 25, Barkama, Tola Beldih, Chandankiyari, P.O., P.S. & Dist.- Bokaro. ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sunil Kumar, S/o Ram Sunder Ram, R/o Nawatand, P.O. & P.S.- Nawdiha Bazar, Dist. Palamau. ….. Respondents With W.P. (Cr.) No. 666 of 2024 Shekhar Kumar, aged about 32 yrs., S/o Sri Badri Ram, R/o Village Bonga, P.O Diahar, P.S Chouparan, Dist. Hazaribagh ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sunil Kumar, S/o Ram Sunder Ram, R/o Nawatand, P.O. & P.S.- Nawdiha Bazar, Dist. Palamau. ….. Respondents For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG III. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, AAG 2 W.P. (Cr.) No. 144 of 2024 and allied cases Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA III Mr. Aman Kumar, Adv. Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC Mines III. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- I.A. no. 1078 OF 2025 in W.P. (Cr.) No. 295 of 2024, I.A. no. 1077 OF 2025 in W.P. (Cr.) No. 144 of 2024, 1076 OF 2025 in W.P. (Cr.) No. 313 of 2024, I.A. no. 1095 OF 2025 in W.P. (Cr.) No. 666 of 2024, Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these interlocutory applications have been filed with a prayer to exercise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and alternatively to allow amendment of the writ petition to add the words “and Article 227” after the words “Article 226” in the cause title of the writ petition. The alternative prayer is allowed. Registry is directed to incorporate the words “and Article 227” after the words “Article 226” in the cause title of the writ petition with the red ink. The petitioner is directed to file the court fees during the course of the day. These interlocutory applications are disposed of. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) W.P. (Cr.) Nos. 295 of 2024 with 144 of 2024 with 313 of 2024 with 666 of 2024 2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondent no. 2 in W.P. (Cr.) No. 313 of 2024, W.P. (Cr.) No. 295 of 2024 and W.P. (Cr.) No. 666 of 2024 even though notices have been validly served upon him. 3 W.P. (Cr.) No. 144 of 2024 and allied cases 3. Since all these four Writ Petitions Criminal have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia with the common prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the Protest – cum- Complaint case no. 332 of 2022 pending in the court of learned JMFC, Palamau including the order dated 09.05.2023, whereby and whereunder, learned Magistrate has found the prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 379, 452, 384, 427, 34 of the IPC against the accused persons, named in the protest cum complaint petition and has directed for issuance of summons against the petitioners, therefore, these four writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner of W.P. (Cr.) No. 144 of 2024 namely Shambhu Kumar Singh was the then Deputy Superintendent of Police Palamau at Daltonganj, the petitioner of W.P. (Cr.) No. 313 of 2024 namely Swapan Kumar Mahato @ Sapan Kumar Mahto was the Officer–in-Charge cum Sub Inspector of police of Naudiha Bazar, police station at the relevant time. The petitioner of W.P. (Cr.) No. 666 of 2024 namely Shekhar Kumar was A.S.I. posted at Naudiha Bazar police station and the petitioner of the W.P. (Cr.) No. 295 of 2024 namely Abhay Kumar was Block Development officer cum Circle officer, Naudiha Bazar P.S. 5. The allegation against the petitioners that on 27.08.2018, at about 10.00 A.M., the petitioners along with the co-accused persons, being armed with deadly weapons , trespassed to the house of the complainant, assaulted him with slaps, took him near his door and snatched away Rs. 5,200/- from his pocket and demolished his house. On the basis of the protest-cum-complaint petition, the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, learned Judicial Magistrate found the prima facie case, against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 4 W.P. (Cr.) No. 144 of 2024 and allied cases 323, 379, 452, 384, 427, 34 of the IPC and directed the complainant to file requisites for issuance of notices to them. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment of this court in the case of Abhay Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. passed in CrMP No. 2509 of 2023 dated 13.05.2024 wherein this Court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla & others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435, paragraph-15 of which reads as under:- “15. Xxxx xxxx xxxx Respondent 2's conduct in filing a delayed complaint case, suppressing material facts, and utilising fresh proceedings to materially improve on his earlier version, in totality, amounts to gross abuse of the process of court.” submits that, as in that case, the second FIR was lodged suppressing the material facts that for the selfsame allegation, the informant earlier lodged another case, and no new discovery on factual foundation has been made rather the allegation made in the FIR, are same as that was made in the earlier FIR and quashed the entire criminal proceeding. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of the court to Annexure 9 of the brief, which is the FIR of Naudiha Bazar P.S. case no. 51 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 427, 354 A , 504, 509 of the IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act that for the selfsame occurrence, including the occurrence on 27.08.2018, the same complainant, as informant of that case, submitted a written application to police, alleging that his house has been demolished by Guru Narayan Pathak and his son as well as the Ramji Prasad and others but there is no allegation against any public servant being involved in the said demolition of the house of the complainant-informant, claimed to have been demolished on 27.08.2018. 7. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner of W.P. (Cr.) No. 144 of 2024 was the investigating officer of the Naudiha Bazar P.S. case no. 51 of 2018 and he 5 W.P. (Cr.) No. 144 of 2024 and allied cases submitted charge sheet, the copy of which has been kept at annexure 10 of this brief, finding only the allegation for the offence punishable under Section 323, 504, 34 of IPC to be true against the accused persons of that case, namely Alok Yadav and nine others i.e. altogether 10 persons. 8. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Naudiha Bazar P.S. case no. 49 of 2020 has been registered after the complaint case no. 76 of 2020 was forwarded to the police by learned CJM, Palamau at Daltonganj under section 156 (3) of the CrPC. It is next submitted that in the said complaint, it has been treated as the written application of Naudiha Bazar P.S. case no. 49 of 2020, the complainant has suppressed the material facts that for the selfsame allegation, the petitioner has also instituted Naudiha Bazar P.S. case no. 51 of 2018 and in that case, after the investigation, charge sheet has been submitted but the writ petitioners before this court were neither named as accused persons of that case nor any allegation was made against them to show their involvement in the said occurrence and during the investigation of the case also, the name of none of the petitioners transpired in the said Naudiha Bazar P.S. case no. 51 of 2018. 9. It is further submitted that this being the second FIR in respect of the selfsame occurrence, the FIR is hit by section 162 of CrPC and considering the fact that the complaint case no. 76 of 2020 is a delayed complaint, suppressing material facts and utilising the fresh proceeding to materially improve his earlier version, the same amounts in totality to gross abuse of process of court. 10. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that complainant -respondent no. 2 was harboring grudge against the petitioner of W.P. (Cr.) No. 144 of 2024 because of the fact, the petitioner of W.P. (Cr.) No. 144 of 2024 did not find the offence allegedly having committed under the penal provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities )Act to be true, therefore, it is submitted that the prayer as made in these writ petitions be allowed. 6 W.P. (Cr.) No. 144 of 2024 and allied cases 11. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the State has no objection to the prayer made by petitioner as the State after investigation of the Naudiha Bazar P.S. case no. 49 of 2020 found the allegation against the petitioner to be not true. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 in W.P. (Cr.) No. 144 of 2024 opposes the prayer made in writ petition, but fairly submits that for the selfsame occurrence, the complainant submitted written application basing upon which, Naudiha Bazar P.S. case no. 51 of 2018 was registered but there is no allegation against any of the petitioners in the written report submitted by the respondent no. 2 in connection with Naudiha Bazar P.S. case no. 51 of 2018. 13. Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that for the selfsame allegation of forcible demolition of the house of the complainant- respondent no. 2 on 27.08.2018, the complainant- respondent no. 2 already lodged written report, basing upon which Naudiha Bazar P.S. case no. 51 of 2018 was registered and the petitioner of W.P. (Cr.) No. 144 of 2024 investigated the said case and submitted charge sheet in the said case as already indicated above. 14. It remains undisputed that in the written report of the said Naudiha Bazar P.S. case no. 51 of 2018, absolutely no allegation has been made against any of the petitioners who are undisputedly public servants and government servant. It is a settled principle of law that the second FIR for the selfsame occurrence, is hit by section 162 of CrPC and 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 7 W.P. (Cr.) No. 144 of 2024 and allied cases 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)” deprecated the registration of multiple FIRs by the same person, for the same set of facts and allegations. 15. Further in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerela & Ors. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 181, paragraph nos. 25 of which reads as under:- “25. Where the police transgresses its statutory power of investigation the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and this Court in an appropriate case can interdict the investigation to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 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) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India opined that 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, is a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 8 W.P. (Cr.) No. 144 of 2024 and allied cases 16. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that inter alia for the occurrence on 27.08.2018 in which, the house of the complainant was allegedly demolished, the complainant- informant filed Naudiha Bazar P.S. case no. 51 of 2018, in which incidentally, the petitioner of W.P. (Cr.) No. 144 of 2024 was the Investigating Officer of the case and there was no allegation against any of the petitioners in the said written report of Naudiha Bazar P.S. case no. 51 of 2018 showing their involvement in any manner in whatsoever, in the alleged demolition of the house of the complainant -informant rather the allegation was specially against Guru Narayan Pathak and his son as well as Ramji Prasad. 17. It is also a undisputed fact that in the Complaint Case No. 76 of 2020, there was no reference of Naudiha Bazar P.S. case no. 51 of 2018 having been filed by the informant. 18. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the conduct of the complainant-informant in filing the delayed complaint case no. 76 of 2020 suppressing the materials facts of Naudiha Bazar P.S. case no. 51 of 2018, having been filed by the complainant for the selfsame allegation, but utilizing the fresh proceeding in terms of complaint case no. 76 of 2020 corresponding to Naudiha Bazar P.S. case no. 49 of 2020 to improve his earlier version, and wrecking vengeance against the public servant who are the Government officers , therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that continuation of the criminal proceeding in connection with Naudiha Bazar P.S. case no. 49 of 2020 will amount to abuse of process of court, therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the Protest –cum- Complaint case no. 332 of 2022 pending in the court of learned JMFC, Palamau including the order dated 09.05.2023 be quashed and set aside. 19. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the Protest –cum- Complaint case no. 332 of 2022 pending in the court 9 W.P. (Cr.) No. 144 of 2024 and allied cases of learned JMFC, Palamau including the order dated 09.05.2023 is quashed and set aside. 20. These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. 21. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court Records in respective writ petitions be sent to the Court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 28th January, 2025 Smita /AFR