Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2530 of 2014 Ezaj Ahmad .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nitya Nand Mahto, Officer-in-Charge, Bharno P.S., Gumla … Opposite Parties --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, APP --- Order No. 05 Dated 8th April 2016 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned APP appearing for the State 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the First Information Report (F.I.R.) in connection with Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 139 of 2014 (G.R. No. 635 of 2014), which has been instituted for the offence punishable u/s 116/417/468/469 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), pending before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla.
3. The F.I.R. was instituted on the basis of statement made by the Officer-in-Charge, Sisai (Bharno) P.S., who is also the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 06 of 2013 in which it was alleged that in course of investigation of Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 06 of 2013, the informant has stated that the statement made by her in Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 06 of 2013 is wrong and baseless as she has stated that it was the petitioner who has taken Rs. 96,000/- in order to register the land, but after some time it came to the knowledge of the informant that the land does not belong to the petitioner, but one Bipin Mohan Sinha and on the pretext of getting the land registered thumb impression was taken. It has also been alleged that the informant subsequently came to know that the petitioner by taking her thumb impression, had instituted a false case against Bipin Mohan Sinha and others under SC/ST Act and she could learn about the role of the petitioner in defrauding her. It has also been mentioned in the F.I.R. that the informant of Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 06 of 2013 had given a statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. in the earlier case.
2. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 139 of 2014 was instituted.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 139 of 2014 is barred in law in view of the fact that with respect to the allegation made in the F.I.R. another case i.e. Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 06 of 2013 had already been instituted and the statement of the informant of that case could not be a ground for instituting another F.I.R. Learned counsel further submits that both the F.I.Rs. relate to the same incident and the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of the investigation carried out in the first F.I.R. and such being improper in law, the entire criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC181reported in (2001) 6 SCC181 Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat & others reported in (2010) 12 SCC254and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI reported in (2013) 6 SCC348 5. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that initially the informant while instituting the first complaint had based her claim on certain information she had received in which the petitioner was not implicated. Subsequently when she came to know that the petitioner had defrauded her she had given information before the police and her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded which ultimately culminated into registration of second F.I.R. It has further been submitted that since the investigation has not been concluded it would be premature to interfere with the entire criminal proceeding.
6. As it appears from the facts of the first complaint made by the informant of Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 06 of 2013 in which it was stated that the informant resides in the house given by the petitioner wherein an incident is said to have been taken on 03.06.2013 as accused persons of the earlier case had assaulted and abused the informant in the name of his caste. Subsequently the complaint case which was instituted had been sent for registration of an F.I.R. u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and thereafter Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 06 of 2013 was instituted. In course of 3. investigation of Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 06 of 2013, the informant was examined. Both in the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. it has categorically been stated that she did not know that the land belongs to one Bipin Mohan Sinha as was her earlier belief. It is clear from the complaint petition of Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 06 of 2013 that the incident is of 03.06.2013when the accused persons of the said case had committed assault upon the informant and had abused in the name of her caste. A fleeting reference has been made with respect to the residence of the complainant/ informant which was given to her by the petitioner, but subsequent thereto in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. she has given a completely different picture by stating that whatever she had disclsoed earlier was totally baseless and that it was the petitioner who had defrauded her stating that the land for which Rs. 96,000/- was taken for its registration did not belong to the petitioner but the same belonged to one Bipin Mohan Sinha. It therefore cannot be said that the incidents of both the F.I.Rs. are same and similar or the registration of the second F.I.R. is a consequence of the incident which had taken place in the first F.I.R.
7. In the case T.T. Antony (supra) it has been held as follows:-
"9. The scheme of CrPC is that an officer in charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 CrPC on the basis of entry of the first information report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of the evidence collected, he has to form an opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(2) CrPC. However, even after filing such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not 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; this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC." 4.
8. Thus it is not in dispute that if there is fresh material in course of investigation which has surfaced the same has to be included in the first F.I.R. and/or the one charge-sheet or supplementary charge-sheet as the case may be. It therefore appears from a perusal of two F.I.Rs. instituted, there cannot be by any stretch of imagination said to be incidental or consequent to the first complaint made by the informant of Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 06 of 2013. In such circumstances, therefore, the judgments which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are inapplicable in the instant case. To sum up the informant was not precluded from instituting an F.I.R. as Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 139 of 2014 with respect to an allegation which does not find place in the first complaint made by the informant of Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 06 of 2013. Therefore there being no merit in this application, the same is accordingly dismissed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK