Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Mahadev Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashutosh Anand assisted by Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel for the State.
2. In all these cases common questions of law are involved that is why all the cases have been heard together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. In all these cases prayer has been made for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 113 of 2020 dated 21.07.2020, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Koderma.
4. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsels for the petitioners submits that the present F.I.R. has been lodged on the written report dated 20.07.2020 issued by the Forest Range Officer, Koderma and on the basis of same letter the Forest Range Officer, Wild Animal Range, Koderma has submitted an offence report in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma on the basis of which a complaint case bearing C-660/2020 has been registered which is pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma awaiting prosecution report.
5. Learned counsels for the petitioners further
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the same set of occurrence, two proceedings cannot be allowed, and allowing a second FIR to be continued amounts to an abuse of process of....
Only the earliest information about the commission of a cognizable offence is required to be continued for the same set of occurrence, and two parallel proceedings for the same set of occurrence cann....
Subsequent F.I.R. lodged for the same occurrence cannot be sustained, and it is an abuse of process of law to allow two separate proceedings for the same occurrence.
Multiple FIRs for the same alleged offense by the same informant are impermissible under law, constituting abuse of legal process.
A second FIR cannot stand when it pertains to the same occurrence as a prior FIR, emphasizing the principle against multiple FIRs for the same incident.
Multiple FIRs arising from distinct allegations are permissible under the law, and quashing is not warranted if separate offences are disclosed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Indian criminal law, double prosecution of an accused for the same incident is not permissible, and separate FIRs for the same incid....
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
