JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-State in Cr. M.P. Nos. 1840/2012, 1902/2013 and 1846/2012.

3. Heard Mr. Satish Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-State in Cr. M.P. No. 853/2014.

4. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-State in Cr. M.P. No. 33/2012.

5. All these petitions have been filed for the following reliefs: -

“That in the instant application is being filed on behalf of the petitioner above named for quashing of First Information Report registered as Gumla Ps Case No 337/11 corresponding to GR No 1110/11 registered for the offence under Section 467, 468, 471, 420, 406, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioner in connection with present case as same is in violations of provisions of Cr.Pc which is presently pending in the court of CJM Gumla awaiting final form.”

Arguments of the petitioners

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued these cases together as they arise out of Gumla P.S. Case No. 337/2011 dated 12.12.2011 registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 406, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and in all these cases, the respective petitioners have filed petition for quashing of the First Information Report in view of the fact that on identical facts and arising out of agreements entered into between the respective petitioners and the Government various cases have been registered earlier. The learned counsel submits that the point involved in these cases is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in the case of co-accused in W.P. (Cr.) No. 32 of 2012 disposed of vide order dated 07.05.2019 arising of same Gumla P.S. Case No. 337/2011.

7. The learned counsel submits that in the present FIR, the allegations were leveled in connection with different agreements executed by the various persons including the petitioners and in connection with each of the present petitioners, different First Information Reports were registered earlier arising out of the corresponding agreements which are involved in this case as well, which is a consolidated FIR. The learned counsel has further submitted that in all the earlier cases which were registered against the present petitioners different charge-sheets have been submitted in respective earlier cases and trial is pending. The learned counsel has submitted that in all these cases, the respective petitioners have annexed the present F.I.R. at Annexure-1 and have also annexed the corresponding agreements/work orders which were issued to the respective petitioners. The copy of the earlier FIR/ charge-sheet is also on record which relate to the respective previous correspondent cases.

8. He submits that W.P. (Cr.) No. 32/2012 was filed by one Anupama Kumari who was the Secretary of an NGO, namely, Navneet Jagriti Manch, Gumla which was awarded the work for plantation of Jetropha plant over 97 acres of land in different villages of Gumla district. She was accused in Gumla P.S. Case No. 337/2011 alleging that bills and vouchers submitted by her were forged. In connection with the same agreement, earlier Gumla P.S. Case No. 148/2008 was registered against her for misappropriation and defalcation of Government money by submitting forged and fabricated papers. The learned counsel has submitted that this Court while disposing of the writ petition being W.P. (Cr.) No. 32 of 2012 found that the allegations made in the present F.I.R. against Anupma Kumari was registered for the same facts and for the same cause of action and accordingly, it was made clear that if any charge-sheet is filed in Gumla P.S. Case No. 337 of 2011, the same shall be treated as supplementary charge-sheet to the charge-sheet submitted in the earlier Gumla P.S. Case No. 148 of 2008 and it was also directed that the proceedi