[2025:JHHC:38488] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 2488 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2488 of 2017 1. Kanhu Jyotish @ Chhota Kanhu Jyotishi, Son of Bhikari Jyotishi 2. Kanhu Jyotishi @ Bara Kanhu Jyotishi, Son of Late Shishir Jyotishi, Both the Resident of Village - Kamalpur, P.O. + P.S. Rajnagar, District - Seraikella Kharsawan, Jharkhand 3. Tarun Jyotishi, Son of Murlidhar Jyotishi 4. Krishna Jyotishi, S/o Mihirchand Jyotishi, 5. Arun Jyotishi, S/o Laxmipath Jyotishi, all are resident of Kamalpur, P.O. + P.S. Rajnagar, District - Seraikella - Kharsawan, Jharkhand 6. Balbhadra Behra @ Balbhadra Rajak, S/o Sanatan Behra, Resident of village Dandu, P.O. + P.S. Rajnagar, District - Seraikella Kharsawan, Jharkhand 7. Bhagirathi Jyotishi @ Bhagi @ Bhogi , S/o Late Khudiram Jyotishi, A Resident of Village Kamalpur, P.O. + P.S. Rajnagar, District - Seraikella - Kharsawan, Jharkhand ...... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Ram Chandra Prasad Sah, Adv. For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen , Addl. PP P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 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 23.08.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in connection with Rajnagar P.S. Case No.30 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.507 of 2017 and S.T. Case No.89 of 2017, on the ground that this being the second FIR in respect of the self-same occurrence in respect of which the Rajnagar P.S. Case No.29 of 2017 was registered on the basis of the written report submitted by the [2025:JHHC:38488] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2488 of 2017 Circle Officer, Rajnagar whereas this FIR for the self-same occurrence, has been instituted by the Officer-in-Charge of Rajnagar Police Station. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 18.05.2017, the villagers of village Sobhapur, Kamalpur, Daandu, Gopinathpur etc. assembled in the village Sobhapur and assaulted Murtaza Ansari who used to hide the child lifters in his house by giving shelter to them. Police along with the Circle Officer as well as the Block Development Officer reached at the place of occurrence. The villagers used criminal force by deterring the informant as well as the Circle Officer in discharging their duties by stopping their vehicle on the way to the said village and torched the said vehicle, causing injuries to 2 to 3 constables. The victim could be rescued and he was taken to hospital after more police force arrived but the victim died. On the basis of the selfsame occurrence, firstly, on the written report of the Sub-Inspector, Rajnagar P.S. Case No.29 of 2017 was registered and police took up investigation of the case and submitted charge-sheet. The accused persons faced trial but some of the accused persons were convicted and others were acquitted whereas the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No.3437 of 2018 was acquitted, the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 of Cr.M.P. No.3427 of 2018 were convicted and the petitioner Nos.4 and 5 of the said Cr.M.P. No.3427 of 2018 were acquitted as is evident from the copy of the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Sessions Trial No.86 of 2017 dated 16.07.2018. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 (2001) 6 SCC 181, paragraph Nos. 25 and 27 of which read 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. [2025:JHHC:38488] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2488 of 2017 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) and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that a 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Maniknandan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3808 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of State vs. Nalini & Others reported in (1999) 5 SCC 253 para- 236 and 237 of which read as under:- “236. The well-known maxim “nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa” (no person should be twice vexed for the same offence) embodies the [2025:JHHC:38488] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2488 of 2017 well-established common law rule that no one should be put to peril twice for the same offence. The principle which is sought to be incorporated into Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code is that no man should be vexed with more than one trial for offences arising out of identical acts committed by him. When an offence has already been the subject of judicial adjudication, whether it ended in acquittal or conviction, it is negation of criminal justice to allow repetition of the adjudication in a separate trial on the same set of facts. 237. Though Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India embodies a protection against a second trial after a conviction of the same offence, the ambit of the clause is narrower than the protection afforded by Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was held by this Court in Manipur Admn. v. Thokchom Bira Singh [AIR 1965 SC 87:(1965) 1 Cri LJ 120] that “if there is no punishment for the offence as a result of the prosecution, Article 20(2) has no application”. While the clause embodies the principle of autrefois convict Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code combines both autrefois convict and autrefois acquit.” and reiterated the settled principle of law that the well- established common law rule is that no one should be put to peril twice for the same offence Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the State appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that there is a marked difference between the two FIRs as the informants are different. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash & Others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292, paragraph No. 17 of which reads and under :- “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 countercase 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 [2025:JHHC:38488] 5 Cr.M.P. No. 2488 of 2017 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) has 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 of Criminal Procedure 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 the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that this FIR has been registered in respect of the self-same occurrence vide Rajnagar P.S. Case No.29 of 2017 and in which case after trial, judgment has been pronounced. 9. In view of the principles of law as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners will tantamount to abuse of process of the law, this being the second FIR in respect of the selfsame occurrence. Hence, it is in the interest of justice that the entire criminal proceeding of Rajnagar P.S. Case No.30 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.507 of 2017 and S.T. Case No.89 of 2017 which is the second case in respect of the self-same occurrence for which Rajnagar P.S. Case No.29 of 2017 has been instituted as well as the order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in connection with the said case, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Rajnagar P.S. Case No.30 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.507 of 2017 and S.T. Case No.89 of 2017 as well as the order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in connection with the said case, are quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. [2025:JHHC:38488] 6 Cr.M.P. No. 2488 of 2017 11. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 12. In view of the disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 25.04.2018, is vacated. 13. The Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 15th December, 2025 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 03.01.2026