2025:JHHC:22123 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr). No. 26 of 2024 ---- 1. Md. Jawed @ Shahid Ali @ Jawed Wakil, son of Md. Jamal; 2. Saad Ali @ Shaad Ali, son of Md. Jawed @ Jawed Wakil; 3. Nawed @ Naved son of Khurshid @ Md. Khurshid; 4. Md. Aftab @ Raja @ Oagi son of Md. Munna; 5. Gullu @ Md. Gulam Ali son of Late Gaffar @ Sk. Gaffar; All resident of Uper Kulhi, Jharia, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad. … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Tabbasum Khatoon, W/o Md. Badruddin, R/o Uper Kulhi, Jharia, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad. … … Respondents CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate Ms. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Deepankar, AC to GA III Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate ---- 10/30.07.2025 Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners in this writ petition have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) quashing/setting aside entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report being Jharia P.S. Case No. 03 of 2024 registered under sections 323, 341, 379, 354, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. It has been alleged that on 03.01.2024 at about 8:00 P.M., the informant came out of her house on hearing commotion and found that few persons were assaulting her son. When she tried to rescue her son, accused Jawed Wakil abused her and other accused persons assaulted her and also threatened to rape her. It has been further alleged that Md. Saad snatched her golden chain and earrings. Jawed Wakil also assaulted the daughter of the informant. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. 2025:JHHC:22123 -: 2 :- Learned counsel argues that the informant had lodged another First Information Report being Jharia P.S. Case No. 02 of 2024 prior to the present case, for the same set of allegations. Learned counsel further submits that the present case has been instituted with malice in order to wreck vengeance as the wife of petitioner No.1 had also lodged a case being Jharia P.S. Case No 04 of 2024 against the informant party. 5. Learned counsel representing the State as also the counsel for the informant-respondent submit that there are serious allegations against the petitioners of assaulting and abusing the informant, her son and daughter and snatching her gold chain and earrings. The petitioners used filthy language with the informant and also threatened to outrage her modesty. Learned counsel argues that the contention of the petitioners that the present First Information Report is a second First Information Report lodged for the same set of allegations is false and absurd. However, it corroborates the fact that the petitioners were present at the place of occurrence on the said date and time creating nuisance in the locality. 6. From the arguments placed by the parties, I find that there is grave and serious allegation of assault and abuse on the petitioners. Further, the petitioners have failed to bring any materials on record that could prove their innocence. From bare perusal of the First Information Reports being Jharia P.S. Case No. 03 of 2024 and Jharia P.S. Case No. 02 of 2024 respectively, the contention that for the same occurrences, two First Information Reports were lodged, can be negated as they did not arise from the same set of transactions. Also, when a cognizable offense is prima facie made out, the First Information Report cannot be quashed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 held: “.....It cannot be said that the FIR is liable to be quashed for the reason that the preliminary inquiry was not conducted. The same can only be done if upon a reading of the entirety of an FIR, no offence is disclosed. Reference in this regard, is made to a judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] wherein, this Court held inter alia that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused and also where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 held 2025:JHHC:22123 -: 3 :- that a criminal proceeding can only be quashed in exceptional cases, such as where the FIR is false, frivolous, or is an abuse of the legal process. However, in the present case, the allegations made in the FIR does not fall within any of the exceptional categories laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for quashing of an FIR. 8. There is a general rule that second FIR cannot be filed for same incident but there are some exceptions to it. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 358 stated that second FIR can be registered if ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances. Paragraph 8.5 and 9 states that – 8.5. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441 this Court held, in the following terms that when a new discovery is made, the second FIR would be maintainable. It was said as follows: “67. The second FIR, in our opinion, would be maintainable not only because there were different versions but when new discovery is made on factual foundations. Discoveries may be made by the police authorities at a subsequent stage. Discovery about a larger conspiracy can also surface in another proceeding, as for example, in a case of this nature. If the police authorities did not make a fair investigation and left out conspiracy aspect of the matter from the purview of its investigation, in our opinion, as and when the same surfaced, it was open to the State and/or the High Court to direct investigation in respect of an offence which is distinct and separate from the one for which the FIR had already been lodged.” “9. From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, the following principles emerge regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR: 9.1 When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered. 9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances. 9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy. 9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances. 9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different.” 9. In the context of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, when weighed the two First Information Reports that are subject matter of consideration before this Court, I find that the impugned First Information Report being Jharia Police Station Case No.03 of 2024 was lodged by the respondent No.2, wherein she has alleged about assault by the petitioners on her son, on the respondent No.2 and her daughter as also snatching of golden chain and ear rings. On the other hand, the earlier First Information Report 2025:JHHC:22123 -: 4 :- being Jharia Police Station Case No.02 of 2024, which the petitioners are claiming to be for the same set of allegations, was in fact lodged by one Md. Matin wherein he had alleged that the petitioners came with sticks and rods, assaulted him, damaged his shop, took away Rs.60,000/- from the cash counter of his shop, they further assaulted Inayat Karim, Md. Asif and Dabloo Patakhe Wale; damaged fire cracker shop of Dabloo Patakhe Wale; took away Rs.90,000/- from the said shop; damaged the CCTV; thrown the fire crackers and tried to ablaze the fire crackers; thereafter started pelting stones on the house of Dabloo Patakhe Wale; the accused persons, by brandishing pistol also threatened if any of the shops open from tomorrow, they will shoot; the accused persons also pelted stones at their house, abused the female members and created a scene of disharmony and fear in the entire Upar Kulhi area. 10. Considering the nature of allegations as also in view of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as excerpted hereto before, I am not inclined to set aside the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in the impugned First Information Report. This Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. 11. This Criminal Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03