Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Karan Kumar Sinha @ Ramchandra Prasad @ Deepak Kumar, s/o Din Dayal Prasad @ Dinanath Prasad – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 660 of 2015
Decided on : 19-04-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 34,323,494,498(A),506 - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 154(3),156(3) - D.P.Act- Section 3/4 - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention - Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Held, It is admitted that that case is arising out of complaint and complaint which is registered as complaint case and on receipt of said complaint, learned Judicial Magistrate, He has written at margin of complaint that police will investigate the case as per provision of section 156(3) Cr.P.C - It is not separate order - It has been clearly written on said petition by way of writing at margin thereof - It has Further been held that said application which has been filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be supported by an affidavit and purpose of filing such affidavit is to prevent abuse of the process which has become more common these days and also held that there was no prior invocation of Section 154(3) while filing this petition before court under Section 156(3) - Thus, order and the action of learned Court sending complaint to the police for its registration under section 156(3) Cr.P.C and FIR is not in consonance with law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court – Petition allowed.
The legal document pertains to a case involving the quashing of an FIR and related proceedings. The primary issues include the legality of multiple FIRs filed for the same incident and whether subsequent investigations and FIR registrations were conducted in accordance with legal procedures.
Key Points: - The petition challenges the registration of a second FIR based on a letter from the police authorities, which was found to be irregular and not in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that registering a second FIR for the same incident, especially when investigations are already underway or a final report has been filed, is generally not permissible unless the subsequent FIR pertains to a different and distinct offence or conspiracy (!) (!) . - The court noted that the initial investigation and proceedings were initiated on a complaint, and subsequent FIRs for the same incident, without proper legal basis, constitute an abuse of process. The court highlighted that investigations should be streamlined and based on proper legal procedures, including obtaining necessary permissions for further investigation (!) (!) . - The court observed that the second FIR registered based on the police report was irregular and that the investigation pursuant to this FIR was of no legal consequence. As a result, this investigation was quashed. However, the court clarified that this does not preclude the investigating agency from seeking permission to conduct further investigations into the original FIRs and to proceed lawfully (!) . - The court also considered the procedural aspects, such as whether the complaint was filed with an affidavit and whether the FIR was filed without proper legal support. It emphasized that procedural lapses, such as filing complaints without affidavits, can impact the validity of proceedings (!) (!) . - The court ultimately allowed the petition, quashed the criminal proceedings related to the FIRs under consideration, and disposed of the case, emphasizing the importance of adhering to proper investigative procedures and the legal rights of the accused (!) .
In summary, the court underscored the importance of lawful registration of FIRs, proper investigation procedures, and the avoidance of multiple FIRs for the same incident unless justified by distinct offences or circumstances.
JUDGMENT :
This petition has been filed for quashing the First Information Report being Bagodar P.S.Case No.217 of 2014 corresponding to G.R.No.2733 of 2014 arising out of Complaint Case No.1156 of 2014 for the alleged offence under sections 498(A)/323/506/34 of the IPC section 3/4 of the D.P.Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.
2. The complaint case was filed by the O.P.No.2 alleging therein that the complainant was married to the accused No.1- Karan Kumar Sinha @ Ramchandra Prasad @ Deepak Kumar, s/o Din Dayal Prasad @ Dinanath Prasad with Hindu rites and customs. Further it is stated that before marriage, he had stated to the family of the complainant including complainant that no dowry would be demanded. Further the complainant went to her sasural at Dariyaganj after marriage and subsequently a baby was born namely Aditya @ Himanshu. Further it has been alleged that in laws family started demanding Rs.3 lacs as Dowry from her. It has been further alleged that when she showed her inability to bring this amount from her Naihar then the accused no.5 Pramod Prasad @ Pramod Kumar who is Chacha sasur of the complainant and a school teacher threatened that either bring this amount of Karan would be married somewhere else to get dowry. Further it has been alleged that accused no.1 to 4 started torture upon her but accused no.5 even threatened to kill her by setting her fire. It has further been alleged that they even tried to kill her by sprinkling kerosene oil but somehow she was saved. Further on 21.05.2014 a panchayati was convened with all the parties under Mukhiyapati. But all in vain and accused persons adamant on their demand and threatened for dire consequences, if the demand is not fulfilled.
3. Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that for the same allegation, the O.P.No.2 has filed the FIR at Nawada which was filed on 23.05.2014 which is registered as Nawada (Nagar) P.S.Case No.269 of 2014. She further submits that for the same allegation the complaint was filed on 12.07.2014 at Giridih. She further submits that the learned court sent the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C for its registration and investigation. By order dated 13.07.2016 this Court has stayed the further proceeding in connection with Bagodar P.S.Case No.217 of 2014, G.R.No.2733 of 2014. She submits that for the same offence two FIRs have been instituted against the petitioners and the petitioners are the husband and inlaws of the O.P.no.2. She relied in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181. Paragraph nos. 21, 27, 28 and 35 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:
The need for an affidavit to support the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and the invalidity of a second FIR with similar allegations.
A prior inquiry under Section 174 does not constitute an FIR, hence a second FIR can be registered based on new evidence, permitting continued investigation regardless of jurisdictional issues.
The duty of the Investigating Officer to find the truth, the powers of the Magistrate to ensure proper investigation, and the importance of fair and just investigation under Article 21 of the Constit....
Abuse of Process of Law - Multiple FIRs for Same Occurrence
The court emphasized that the FIR could not be quashed at this stage, especially in the absence of any material collected by the investigating agency and in the absence of any challenge to the cogniz....
A second FIR with respect to the same offence/occurrence/incident is not maintainable and constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
The investigation of non-cognizable offences without the order of a Magistrate is illegal and cannot be cured. The impugned FIR must disclose a cognizable offence to justify an investigation by the p....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
