Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Mahesh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 19.02.2010 passed in connection with G. Case No. 154 of 2009, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
3. The prosecution report has been submitted by the Forest Guard alleging therein that on 26.06.2009 at about 12.15 in the day on secret information in Chitarpur forest that some persons are doing illegal mining, the informant along with his associates reached at the place of occurrence upon which the accused persons fled away. The accused persons were identified and the vehicle used for the aforesaid purpose were seized in presence of the witnesses. The offence report was prepared on 31.01.2010.
4. Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, learned counsel the petitioners submits that for the same set of occurrence two cases have been filed one by way of F.I.R. and second by way of complaint which is not permissible in the eye of law. She submits that the complaint case is subject matter of the present Cr.M.P. According to her,
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....
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....
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 be registered for the same incident; investigations must be consolidated under the first FIR to prevent duplicity.
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.
The court quashed criminal proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, ruling that the land in question is raiyati land and not part of a protected forest, preventing abuse of process.
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
