( 2026:JHHC:11310 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No. 940of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 940 of 2026 ------ 1. Indrajeet Ram@ Indrajeet@ Idrajeet Ram, aged about 33 years, Son of Lalmohan Ram, Resident of Ayodhya Nagar, Bijuliya Talab Road, P.O- Ramgarh Cantt, P.S- Ramgarh& District Ramgarh 2. Sagar Ram@ Sagar Kumar Ram, aged about 32 years, Son of Ganesh Ram, Resident of Sweeper Colony, Ramgarh, P.O and P.S.- Ramgarh& District Ramgarh 3. Jitendra Ram, aged about 42 years, Son of Lakhan Ram, Resident of Nehru Road, Cantt Staff Quarte, P.O- Ramgarh Cantt, P.S.- Ramgarh and District- Ramgarh 4. Pankaj Kumar@ Pankaj Kumar Ram, aged about 37 years, son of Mahendra Ram, Resident of Cantt. Staff Quarter, P.O- Ramgarh Cantt. P.S.-Ramgarh & District-Ramgarh 5. Vikram Kumar@ Vikram Kumar, aged about 26 years, Son of Kapil Ram, Resident of Kaint Staff Quarter, P.O- Ramgarh Cantt, P.S. Ramgarh & District Ramgarh … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mrs. Satakchhi Priya Verma, Advocate : Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Akriti Shree, Advocate : Mr. Kshitiz Priyanshu, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ( 2026:JHHC:11310 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No. 940of 2026 By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with S.T. Case No.34 of 2024 arising out of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506, 120B IPC and under section 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35, 25 (1-AAA) of Arms Act. Prayer has also been made to quash and set aside the original chargesheet bearing no. 127 of 2023 dated 11.10.2023 and supplementary chargesheet bearing no. 03 of 2024 dated 28.01.2024 in connection with the aforesaid case. Further prayer has been made to quash and set aside the order dated 11.12.2023 and 03.04.2024 taking cognizance whereby and whereunder the learned trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case for having committed the offence punishable under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 25(1-B), 26, 35 and 25 (1- AAA) of Arms Act. Lastly, the prayer has also been made to quash and set aside the order framing charge dated 30.03.2024 and 03.04.2024 in connection with the aforesaid case, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge-FTC, Ramgarh has framed charges against the petitioners under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506 of the IPC and under section 25 (1-AAA), 26(2), 35 of the Arms Act, and the case is currently pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramgarh. ( 2026:JHHC:11310 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No. 940of 2026 3. The brief facts of the case is that Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of 2023 was registered for the occurrence which took place on 13.08.2023 at 12:00 Noon and the allegation is that the petitioners herein along with the co-accused persons were demolishing the boundary wall constructed on the land of the informant by using J.C.B. Machine and on being protested by the informant and his associates, the petitioners fired upon Janki Yadav and Pawan Kumar Yadav causing them gunshot injury. 4. Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 has been registered on the basis of self-statement of Sub-Inspector of Police who reached the place of occurrence after getting information of the occurrence in respect of which the F.I.R. of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of 2023 has been registered and police apprehended the petitioners who are also the accused of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of 2023 and recovered fire arms and ammunition from them. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Manish Varma & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.1735 of 2023 dated 06.05.2024 and submits that therein this Court relied 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 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that a 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) Cr.P.C has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may ( 2026:JHHC:11310 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No. 940of 2026 be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submit that in that case this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prem Chand Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2020) 3 SCC 54 paragraph-11 of which reads as under:- “11. It is, therefore, apparent that the subject-matter of both the FIRs is the same general power of attorney dated 2-5-1985 and the sales made by the appellant in pursuance of the same. If the substratum of the two FIRs are common, the mere addition of Sections 467, 468 and 471 in the subsequent FIR cannot be considered as different ingredients to justify the latter FIR as being based on different materials, allegations and grounds.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that since the substratum of the two F.I.Rs are common, the mere addition of certain offences in the subsequent F.I.R. cannot be considered as different ingredients to justify Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023. 7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348, paragraph-58.3 of which reads as under:- “58.3. Even after filing of such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, there is no need to register a fresh FIR, he is empowered to make further investigation normally with the leave of the court and where during further investigation, he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports which is evident from sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code. Under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of the Code, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 of the Code. Thus, there can be no second FIR and, consequently, there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or ( 2026:JHHC:11310 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No. 940of 2026 the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court has also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of C. Muniappan & Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has referred to the consequent test by observing that if any part of second F.I.R. arises as a consequence of the offence alleged in the first F.I.R. and then the offences covered by both the F.I.Rs are the same and accordingly, the second F.I.R. will be impermissible in law or in the other words, the offence covered in both the F.I.Rs shall have to be treated as part of the first F.I.R. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta & Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home & Another reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706 paragraph-16 of which reads as under:- “16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, para 7 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513. Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591, para 20 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 338 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 237] . Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.” and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated that even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court; High Court ( 2026:JHHC:11310 ) 6 Cr. M.P. No. 940of 2026 can exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Others reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770 paragraph-107 of which reads as under:- “107. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact situation, the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opusmeaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case.” and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled proposition of law that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P. be allowed. 11. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in this Cr.M.P. 12. 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 as has categorically been mentioned in paragraph-27 of the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Others (supra) that a second F.I.R. is not maintainable unless it is a counter case. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held in the case of Prem Chand Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (supra) that if the substratum of the two F.I.Rs are common, the mere addition of some additional section in the ( 2026:JHHC:11310 ) 7 Cr. M.P. No. 940of 2026 subsequent F.I.R. cannot be considered as different ingredients, to justify latter F.I.R. 13. Now coming to the consequent test as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of C. Muniappan & Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), to the facts of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the offence forming part of the second F.I.R. i.e. recovery of ammunition arises as a consequence of the offence committed in the first F.I.R. i.e. the Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of 2023. Thus, the offences covered by both the F.I.Rs in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of 2023 and Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 are same. Hence, the F.I.R. of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 is impermissible in law and the offences covered by both the F.I.Rs shall have to be treated as part of the Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of 2023. Therefore, the F.I.R. of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, continuation of the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 and the proceedings in connection with S.T. Case No.34 of 2024 will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with S.T. Case No.34 of 2024 arising out of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with S.T. Case No.34 of 2024 arising out of ( 2026:JHHC:11310 ) 8 Cr. M.P. No. 940of 2026 Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 15. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 17th of April, 2026 AFR/ Abha Uploaded on 23/04/2026