(2025:JHHC:38663) 1 Cr. M.P. No.1690 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1690 of 2025 ------ 1. Rama Shankar Tiwary, Aged about 42 years, S/O- Hiralal Tiwary 2. Prem Tiwary @ Prem Kumar Tiwary @ Prem Kr Tiwary, Aged about 33 years, S/O- Hiralal Tiwary, 3. Lalan Kumar Tiwary @ Golden Tiwari @ Lalan Kr Tiwary @ Golden Tiwary, Aged about 33 years, S/O- Chaturbhuj Tiwary, All are R/O- Kharkharee Basti, P.O.- Kharkharee, P.S.- Madhuban, District- Dhanbad … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Vijay Paswan, S/o- Ram Charitra Paswan, R/o- Kharkhari, Narayan Dhora, P.O. + P.S. – Madhuban, District - Dhanbad … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. (Through V.C.) For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate Ms. Shyna Hasan, Advocate ------ 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 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. of Madhuban P.S. Case No. 68 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 436, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, on the ground (2025:JHHC:38663) 2 Cr. M.P. No.1690 of 2025 that the same is the second F.I.R. in respect of which Madhuban P.S. Case No.66 of 2022 has been registered. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not press the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in respect of the petitioner No.1 namely Rama Shankar Tiwary. 4. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is rejected as not pressed in respect of the petitioner No.1 namely Rama Shankar Tiwary. 5. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners along with the co- accused persons being member of an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons caused explosion by using explosive substances illegally, set fire to the shop of the informant and being not members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes intentionally insulted and intimidated the informant and his associates who are the members of the Scheduled Caste, in a place within public view and abused them by their caste name. The occurrence took place at 11:00 A.M. on 07.11.2022 in respect of which Madhuban P.S. Case No. 66 of 2022 was instituted on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant-owner of the shop namely Dilu Paswan. Madhuban P.S. Case No. 68 of 2022 was instituted on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant of the said case who is the maternal uncle of the informant of Madhuban P.S. Case No. 66 of 2022 and therein the allegations made by the informant is that as the informant reached the place of occurrence on getting information that the shop of his nephew has been set on fire, the petitioners and the co-accused persons of the case abused him, (2025:JHHC:38663) 3 Cr. M.P. No.1690 of 2025 insulted him and fired upon him from gun and revolver and also abused him by his caste name. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 paragraph-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) and submits that it is a settled principle of law that fresh investigation based on second or successive F.I.Rs., 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 F.I.R. either investigation is under way or Final Report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to (2025:JHHC:38663) 4 Cr. M.P. No.1690 of 2025 the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the Madhuban P.S. Case No.68 of 2022 has been registered for the self-same occurrence and at least the occurrence in course of the same transaction in respect of Madhuban P.S. Case No.66 of 2022 has been registered; hence, it is submitted that the same is not sustainable in law and the same be quashed and set aside in respect of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3. It is also submitted that the similar prayer of the co-accused has already been allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 17th of June, 2025 in Cr.M.P. No.3059 of 2024. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Surendra Singh Rathore reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 358 and submits that in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the following five conditions in para-9 which reads as under:- “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 (2025:JHHC:38663) 5 Cr. M.P. No.1690 of 2025 incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances. 9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different.” and submits that as the F.I.R. of Madhuban P.S. Case No.68 of 2025 does not fit in any of the five conditions where the second F.I.R. is maintainable, hence, the State has no objection to the prayer, as prayed for by the petitioners, in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 9. 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 it is a settled principle of law that the second F.I.R. in respect of same occurrence or the offences which have been alleged to have been committed in course of the same transaction in respect of which earlier F.I.R. has been registered is hit by the provisions of Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. 10. In view of the discussions made above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that Madhuban P.S. Case No. 68 of 2022 has been registered in respect of the offences, which were committed in respect of the same transactions for which Madhuban P.S. Case No. 66 of 2022 has been registered. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the F.I.R. of Madhuban P.S. Case No. 68 of 2022 is hit by the provisions of Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. in view of the registration of Madhuban P.S. Case No.66 of 2022 for the same cause of action. 11. Accordingly, the F.I.R. being Madhuban P.S. Case No. 68 of 2022 being not maintainable is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner Nos.2 (2025:JHHC:38663) 6 Cr. M.P. No.1690 of 2025 and 3 namely Prem Tiwary @ Prem Kumar Tiwary @ Prem Kr Tiwary and Lalan Kumar Tiwary @ Golden Tiwari @ Lalan Kr Tiwary @ Golden Tiwary. 12. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 23rd of December, 2025 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 05/01/2026