( 2025:JHHC:24687 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.2875 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2875 of 2023 1. Afjal SK @ Afjal Shekh, Aged about 38 years, S/o –Asraul SK @ Anamul Sk @ Asaraful Haque, 2. Jannat Bibi @ Jannata Bibi, Aged about 48 years, W/o –Ejul SK @ Aejul Haque, 3. Asraul SK @ Anamul Sk @ Asaraful Haque @ Akchamul Shikh, Aged about 68 years, S/o –Late Gafur Munshi 4. Sadu Bibi @ Saira Bibi @ Sahu Bibi, Aged about 63 years, W/o – Asraul SK @ Anamul Sk @ Asaraful Haque, 5. Ejul Sk @ Aejul Haque @ Aijul Shikh, Aged about 52 years, S/o – Asraul Sk @ Anamul Sk @ Asaraful Haque All are R/o –Saifuddin Tola, Paschimi Pranpur, P.O. –Piyarpur, P.S. –Radhanagar, District –Sahibganj. .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sabina Bibi, W/o –Md. Afjal Sk, D/o –Late Sukhu Sheikh, R/o – Haji Bogdar Tola, East Jamnagar, P.O. +P.S. –Rajmahal, District - Sahibganj. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 12.06.2020, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Rajmahal in connection with Radhanagar P.S. Case No. 102 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. ( 2025:JHHC:24687 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.2875 of 2023 Case No. 661 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498A/313 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and directed issue of notice and further prayer has been made to quash the entire criminal prosecution against the petitioners vide Radhanagar P.S. Case No. 102 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 661 of 2019, presently pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Rajmahal. 3. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention of this Court to page no.27 (annexure-2) of the brief which is the F.I.R. of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 39 of 2015, which has been registered consequent upon the PCR Case No. 580 of 2014 filed by the informant-complainant in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Rajmahal being forwarded to police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., that in that case the petitioners have been held not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they have been acquitted and discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds; after conclusion of the trial. It is next submitted that inadvertently, again the copy of the said PCR Case No. 580 of 2014 was forwarded to police and on the self-same Complaint Petition No. 580 of 2014 subsequently again a separate case being Radhanagar P.S. Case No. 102 of 2019 has been registered and as upon investigation of the case, the police came to know its mistake, hence it submitted Final Form but the learned Judicial Magistrate ignoring the fact that the F.I.R. of ( 2025:JHHC:24687 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.2875 of 2023 Radhanagar P.S. Case No. 102 of 2019 in respect of the self-same occurrence, on the basis of the self-same complaint, Rajmahal (Radhanagar) P.S. Case No. 39 of 2015 has been registered; has again taken cognizance of the said offences. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are false and for the self-same occurrence, a second F.I.R. is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Manikandan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Others, reported in 2024 INSC 1007 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the well- established principle of criminal jurisprudence that a person cannot be punished for the same offence twice, on the principle of double jeopardy. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 4. The learned Spl. P.P. submits that by mistake, for the self-same occurrence basing upon the self-same complaint petition two F.I.Rs. have been registered which is not maintainable, hence the second F.I.R. is hit by the provisions of Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that a case based on second or successive F.I.R. 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 ( 2025:JHHC:24687 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.2875 of 2023 Final Report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. 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 as has been held by 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, para -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 sub-section (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) 6. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that because of some clerical error basing upon the same complaint case upon being forwarded to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. two separate F.I.Rs. have been registered. The first F.I.R. being Rajmahal (Radhanagar) P.S. Case No. 39 of 2015 in which the petitioners have been acquitted after facing the trial but the second ( 2025:JHHC:24687 ) 5 Cr.M.P. No.2875 of 2023 F.I.R. of this case is the Radhanagar P.S. Case No. 102 of 2019. It is needless to mention that this F.I.R. of the Radhanagar P.S. Case No. 102 of 2019, is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and is not sustainable in law and police has rightly submitted Final Form and did not send up the petitioners for trial but the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Rajmahal has committed a grave illegality by differing with the police and taking cognizance of the offences. Hence, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 12.06.2020, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Rajmahal in connection with Radhanagar P.S. Case No. 102 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 661 of 2019 being not sustainable in law is quashed and set aside. 7. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th August, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-