[ 2026:JHHC:11469 ] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 106 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 106 of 2025 Sukumar Mahato, aged about 22 years, son of Dinanath Mahto, resident of Village Bandu, Jugilong, PO & P.S. Nimdih, District - Seraikella Kharsawan. ...... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .….. Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap , Adv. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey , 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 528 of BNSS, 2023 with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Nimdih P.S. case no. 26 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 414/34 of IPC and also for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sakchi P.S. case no. 130 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 414/34 of IPC. 3. The brief fact of the case is that Kuchai P.S. case no. 19 of 2023 has been registered on 19.06.2023 in respect of the theft of the vehicle on 12.06.2023 belonging to the informant of that case. The Nimdih P.S. case no. 26 of 2024 has been registered on 09.06.2024 in respect of the occurrence of 09.06.2024 when the police after getting secret information that the petitioner is assisting in concealment of the stolen property of motorcycle and disposing of stolen motorcycle in his motorcycle garage; raided the motorcycle garage of the petitioner and found that two motorcycles, without any number plate, were being parked in the said garage. The petitioner could not produce any document in respect of the ownership of the said two motorcycles and on being interrogated, [ 2026:JHHC:11469 ] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 106 of 2025 the petitioner disclosed that he has purchased the two stolen motorcycles for Rs. 12,000/- each from one Bhojohari Mahato and he was in search of prospective purchasers of the stolen motorcycles. The petitioner has also admitted that he has been purchasing the stolen motorcycles regularly. On the basis of the written report submitted by the officer-in-charge of Nimdih Police Station, the police registered Nimdih P.S. case no. 26 of 2024, and took up investigation of the case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is going on. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sakchi P.S. case no. 130 of 2024 was registered on 10.06.2024 for the occurrence which took place between 09.06.2024 to 10.06.2024. The written report on the basis of which, the said FIR has been registered, discloses that two co-accused persons of the petitioner namely Durga Mahato and Pradip Mahato were apprehended by the police while riding for stolen motorcycle. On being interrogated, the co-accused Durga Mahato led to discovery of six stolen motorcycles, the co-accused Pradip Mahato led to discovery of three stolen motorcycles and another co-accused namely Bhojohari Mahato led to discovery of two motorcycles which he received from Pradip Mahato and Durga Mahato. Bhojohari Mahato confessed that he sold two stolen motorcycles to the petitioner. On the basis of the written report submitted by the officer-in-charge of the Sakchi Police Station, Sakchi P.S. case no. 130 of 2024 was registered. It is summited by learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is going on. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerela & Ors. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 181, paragraph no. 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 [ 2026:JHHC:11469 ] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 106 of 2025 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) submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that 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. 6. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the police with malafide intention has lodged the second FIR vide Nimdih P.S. case no. 26 of 2024 and the third FIR vide Sakchi P.S. case no. 130 of 2024. It is next submitted that all the three FIRs are pertaining to the same transaction and occurrence, hence, registration of multiple FIRs for the same offence is contrary to the law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. Learned Addl. PP on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that all the three FIRs are maintainable because they are separate and distinct. It is next submitted that Kuchai P.S. case no. 19 of 2023 relates to commission of theft of one motorcycle and the offence took place on 12.06.2023. It is next submitted that Sakchi P.S. case no. 130 of [ 2026:JHHC:11469 ] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 106 of 2025 2024 relates to recovery of at least eight stolen motorcycles whereas, Nimdih P.S. case no. 26 of 2024 has been instituted in respect of the assistance in concealment of two stolen motorcycles and the motorcycles are different and separate and the FIRs were registered because of the new discovery made on factual foundation. It is next submitted that the place of occurrence and the date of occurrence of all the three FIRs are separate and distinct, so by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that occurrence relating to the three FIRs took place in course of the same transaction, 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, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab & Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441 paragraph-67 of which reads as under:- “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.” (Emphasis supplied)” held that the second F.I.R. would be maintainable when there were not only different versions but also when new discovery is made on factual foundations. The discoveries may be made by the police authorities at a subsequent stage. The discovery about a larger conspiracy can also surface in another proceeding. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the place of occurrence of Kuchai P.S. case no. 19 of 2023 is at Kuchai and the date of occurrence is 12.06.2023 and it relates to commission of theft of one motorcycle only; whereas Sakchi P.S. case no. 130 of 2024 relates to assistance in concealment of eight stolen motorcycles, some of which were disposed of and some of [ 2026:JHHC:11469 ] 5 Cr.M.P. No. 106 of 2025 which were to be disposed of, involving four different accused persons, including separate persons, who have committed theft of the said motorcycles namely Durga Mahato and Pradip Mahato, in separate occurrences, which are no way related to Kuchai P.S. case no. 19 of 2023, as the place of occurrence of the theft of motorcycle was within the Sakchi Police Station. 10. So far as Nimdih P.S. case no. 26 of 2024 is concerned, the same relates to assisting in concealment of two stolen motorcycles, one of which was apparently stolen in connection with Kuchai P.S. case no. 19 of 2023 but the undisputed fact remains that there is yet another stolen motorcycle, apart from the one which was concealed by the petitioner for disposing of. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that three FIRs, having been separate and distinct occurrence, which is based on new discovery on factual foundations and they are not related to the stolen property of one or the other case, it cannot said that all the three occurrences relates to the same transaction. 12. Accordingly, there being no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in exercise of its power under section 528 of BNSS, 2023; this court is of the considered view that this is a not fit case where the prayer as made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition by the petitioner is to be acceded in exercise of its power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. 13. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 2nd April, 2026 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 28.04.2026