The duty of the Investigating Officer to proceed only on the first information entered in the police station diary and to cover subsequent information under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

D.K. Sinha, J. Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the FIR, in connection with Ghagra P.S. Case No. 25/2011, corresponding to G.R. No. 240/2011, registered for the alleged offence under Sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 9(B) of the Explosive Act, pending before the CJM, Gumla.

2. Prosecution story in short was that the informant Somari Devi i.e. opposite party No.4 herein had delivered her fardbeyan before the officer-in-charge of Ghagra police station on 15.3.2011 at about 14:30 hours at Ghagra narrating therein that her husband Manglu Lohra (since deceased) was a welder in Hindalco Industries Limited, who used to do work in Hindalco Industries Limited as per his trade. On 8.3.2011, he was asked by the officers of the Hindalco Industries Limited to accompany the driver Sushil Kujur to carry explosive substance in the explosive van of the Company, though it was not the part of the duty of her husband. On 8.3.2011 there held explosion in the explosive van as a result of which the driver and her husband died and for that the officers of the Hindalco Industries Limited, i.e. the petitioners viz. Karun Kant Dave, Bijesh Kr. Jha, Rudra Baksh Singh, Prakash Kumar, Mukesh Kumar Pandey, Sapan Dev @ Swapan Sen and other officers were held responsible, who in furtherance of common intention, committed murder of her husband who in contravention of the provisions of Explosive Act sent her husband. The case was registered under Sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 9(B) of the Explosive Act against the petitioners and investigation was initiated.

3. The learned counsel Mr. Sen submitted that on 8.3.2011 explosive vehicle of Hindalco Industries Limited was carrying explosives under valid licence from Ranchi to Sherengdag mines. Husband of the informant was khalasi in the explosive van. The van was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver as a result of which it caused explosion, which resulted into death of the driver and the khalasi, to which immediately an FIR was lodged being Ghagra P.S. Case No. 24/2011 on the fardbeyan of the village chaukidar Kauleshwar Gope of Ghagra police station for the alleged offence under Sections 279/286/304(A) of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of explosive van No. BR 42G 0040. Village chaukidar Kauleshwar Gope narrated that on 8.3.2011 there held explosion at about 11:30 a.m. near chulhamati turning and he was apprised by the villagers that an explosive van of Hindalco Industries Limited was exploded, which resulted into fire which broke out therein and consequently, two persons died. Dead body of one person was there inside the explosive van, whereas dead body of another was found lying at the distance of about fifty metres on the flank of the road. The informant was further apprised by the villagers that the driver of the explosive van was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently on uneven road as a result of which the driver and another died in such accident. After institution of the case, the police initiated investigation, but subsequently the instant case was lodged on 15.3.2011, in spite of the fact that criminal law was set in motion in Ghagra P.S. Case No. 24/2011 on 8.3.2011 itself for the same set of occurrence. Instant case was instituted after about seven days from the date of accident on the statement of the widow of the deceased Somari Devi, who could have been the witness to the circumstances of the death of her husband in such accident. Her statement cannot be held to be an independent statement for lodging a fresh case for the same occurrence and therefore, her status would be determined as a witness and not of an informant and similarly, subsequent institution of the case on her statement would be treated as the statement under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reason that it was the duty of the Investigating Officer not merely to investigate