[2025:JHHC:38692] 1 Cr. M.P. No.389 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.389 of 2024 ------ Chandi Gayali @ Ravikant Gayali, aged about 32 years, Son of Anath Gayali, Resident of Gram Brahamadiha Basti, Sinidih, P.O. Tundoo, P.S. Madhuban, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand, 828128 … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Vijay Paswan, S/o Ram Charitra Paswan, aged about 45 years, R/o Kharkhari, Narayan Dhora, P.O. + P.S.- Madhuban, Dist- Dhanbad, Jharkhand … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. 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. 2. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party No.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding along with the First Information Report in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 68 of 2022 on the ground that the same [2025:JHHC:38692] 2 Cr. M.P. No.389 of 2024 is the second First Information Report in respect of which Madhuban P.S. Case No. 66 of 2022 has been registered. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner 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 Castes, 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, insulted him and fired upon him from gun and revolver and also abused him by his caste name. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case [2025:JHHC:38692] 3 Cr. M.P. No.389 of 2024 of T.T. Antony v. 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) 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 [2025:JHHC:38692] 4 Cr. M.P. No.389 of 2024 to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the Madhuban P.S. 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 which Madhuban P.S. Case No. 66 of 2022 has been registered. It is further submitted that the similar prayer of the co-accused has already been allowed by this Court vide the judgment dated 17th of June, 2025 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 3059 of 2024. Hence, it is submitted that the same is not sustainable in law and the same be quashed and set aside. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State relying 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, 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 [2025:JHHC:38692] 5 Cr. M.P. No.389 of 2024 to the 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 petitioner in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 8. Having heard the 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 9. 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 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 Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the registration of Madhuban P.S. Case No. 66 of 2022 for the same cause of action. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding along with the First Information Report being Madhuban P.S. Case No. 68 of 2022, [2025:JHHC:38692] 6 Cr. M.P. No.389 of 2024 being not maintainable, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 11. 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/ Saroj Uploaded on 03/01/2026