[ 2025:JHHC:35337] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 1887 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1887 of 2023 Pawan Kumar, aged about 25 years, son of Binod Paswan, resident of Village - Goindi, P.O.- Udaypura, P.S.Tarhasi, District - Palamau (Jharkhand). ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Binko Bara, daughter of Late Manmasih Bara, resident of Village Tongritoli, P.O. & P.S. Kersai, District Simdega (Jharkhand) (Mobile No. 8434755162 and Aadhar Card No. 778636620308) ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Adv. Ms. Supriya Dayal, Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl. PP For the O.P.No. 2 : None P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. Though notice has validly been served upon the opp. Party no. 2 but no one turns up on behalf of the opp. Party no. 2 in spite of repeated calls. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 04.05.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega whereby and whereunder, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 493/417 of the IPC and passed summoning order in connection with Simdega Mahila P.S. case no. 23 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. case no. 260 of 2021 on the ground that the same is the second FIR [ 2025:JHHC:35337] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 1887 of 2023 in respect of the same occurrence for which, earlier Tarhasi P.S. case no. 16 of 2020 has been registered. 3. Perusal of the record reveals that Annexure 3 which is the copy of the certified copy of Tarhasi P.S. case no. 16 of 2020, reveals that the same was instituted alleging therein that the prosecutrix while working in a company came in contact with the petitioner who was also an employee there and the petitioner proposed to marry the prosecutrix and he sexually exploited her from the year 2018 - 2020 on the promise of marrying her. Thereafter, the petitioner demanded money from the prosecutrix and between the year 2018 -2020, the prosecutrix gave Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner. There is also allegation in the said FIR that the petitioner took the prosecutrix on 25.01.2020 from Hazaribagh to his house and sexually exploited her on 03.02.2020 and sent the prosecutrix back to her house at Simdega and the petitioner was going to marry for the second time. The police after investigation of the Tarhasi P.S. case no. 16 of 2020, has submitted the charge sheet and trial of the case is going on. The Simdega Mahila P.S. case no. 23 of 2020 was registered on the basis of the Complaint case no. 43 of 2020 being forwarded to the police under Section 156 (3) of CrPC by learned CJM, Simdega. The allegation made in the said FIR of Simdega Mahila P.S. case no. 23 of 2020 is that while working in the company, the informant developed friendship with the petitioner and the petitioner established physical relationship with the informant on the pretext of marrying her. The petitioner went to the house of the informant at Simdega and asked for the hand of the informant from her mother and stayed in her house. On the next day, the petitioner committed rape upon the informant against her wish and disclosed that he is ready to marry her and put vermillion on the forehead of the informant and thereafter, the petitioner continuously sexually exploited the informant by alluring her to marry her. In the meanwhile, the informant became pregnant but by cheating, the petitioner administered her medicine and made to miscarry her foetus and further by cheating [ 2025:JHHC:35337] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1887 of 2023 has taken Rs. 40,000/- for marrying her. It is pertinent to mention here that Tarhasi P.S. case no. 16 of 2020 was registered on 05.03.2020 whereas Simdega Mahila P.S. case no. 23 of 2020 was registered on 04.09.2020. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of this court in the case of Adarsh Laksh @ Adarsh Lakshya @ Bhaiya Ji vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2025:JHHC: 32548 submits that therein this Court relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerela & Ors. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 181, paragraph nos. 25 and 27 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 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) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not [ 2025:JHHC:35337] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 1887 of 2023 being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence, alleged to have been committed in course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is underway or Final Report under section 173(2) of CrPC has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC or under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of 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 no. 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 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) and submits that 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 of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292, paragraph no. 17 of which reads and under :- [ 2025:JHHC:35337] 5 Cr.M.P. No. 1887 of 2023 “17. It is clear from the words emphasised hereinabove in the above quotation, this Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] has not excluded the registration of a complaint in the nature of a counter-case from the purview of the Code. In our opinion, this Court in that case only held that any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same accused will amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code. This prohibition noticed by this Court, in our opinion, does not apply to counter-complaint by the accused in the first complaint or on his behalf alleging a different version of the said incident.” (Emphasis supplied) wherein it was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same accused will amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which corresponds to Section 181 of BNS. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. Learned Addl. PP on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the places of occurrence of the two cases are different hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, this court finds that period of sexual exploitation involved in Tarhasi P.S. case no. 16 of 2020 is from 2018 -2020 whereas the same allegation has been made in this case being Simdega Mahila P.S. case no. 23 of 2020 but the period is confined only to the year 2019. [ 2025:JHHC:35337] 6 Cr.M.P. No. 1887 of 2023 9. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that FIR of Simdega Mahila P.S. case no. 23 of 2020 is the second FIR, in respect of which, Tarhasi P.S. case no. 16 of 2020 has been registered, which is hit by the provisions of Section 162 of CrPC and continuation of the second FIR being Simdega Mahila P.S. case no. 23 of 2020 will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 04.05.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in connection with Simdega Mahila P.S. case no. 23 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. case no. 260 of 2021 be quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 04.05.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in connection with Simdega Mahila P.S. case no. 23 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. case no. 260 of 2021, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 11. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 18th November, 2025 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 09/12/ 2025