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 law.

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 submit that admittedly for the same set of occurrence two parallel case, one by way of F.I.R. and second by way of complaint is not permissible in the law. According to them, source has been stated through secret informant but what is secret information has not been disclosed by the informant. They further submit that 22 persons have been made accused in the F.I.R. They further submit that the petitioners are neither owner nor driver of the seized vehicle and they have no concern with the illegal mining of stone. They further submits that in the Indian Forest Act there is provision of power to arrest under section 64 of the Act and enquiry in the light of section 72 of the said Act. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submit that the present F.I.R. is bad in law as it is settled law that for the same set of occurrence two parallel proceedings cannot be allowed.

6. Per contra Mr. Ashutosh Anand learned counsel for the State submits that in the light of section 210 of Cr.P.C. both the cases are required to be amalgamated. He tried to justify lodging of two cases and submits that there is no illegality if both the proceedings are allowed to be continued. By way of referring section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., he submits that complaint has been defined in that section of the Cr.P.C. On these grounds, he submits that these petitions are fit to be dismissed.

7. The Court has gone through the contents of F.I.R. and complaint annexed with the petition. Date of both cases are same i.e. 20.07.2020. Looking into the contents of F.I.R. as well as complaint, Court finds that contents of both the cases depicted therein are same. The offence report which is basis of initiation of complaint, it transpires that contents of both the cases are same.

8. In Cr. M.P. No. 2651 of 2020 counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties wherein para 17 it has been stated as under:-

“17. That it is further submitted that in paragraph no. 9 of the instant petition, it is an admitted position that there is difference in the charges as alleged in the Complaint Case No. 660/2020 and the Koderma P.S. Case No. 113/2020 and as such both the cases has been instituted against the petitioners. That it is further submitted that Section 3 (A) & (B) of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 could not added in the complaint case due to technical and inadvertence therefore Koderma P.S. Case No. 113/2020 was instituted against all the accused persons.”

9. Looking into the aforesaid paragraph, it is crystal clear that only for adding Section 3 (A) & (B) of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, F.I.R. has been lodged.

10. It is well settled law that for the same set of occurrence if two cases are lodged only the earliest for the information about commission of a cognizable offence are required to be c