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 cannot be allowed.

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, source has been stated through secret informant but what is secret information has not been disclosed by the informant. She 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. She submits that the present complaint is bad in law as it is settled law that for the same set of occurrence two parallel proceedings cannot be allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that prosecution has rightly been launched.

6. 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. 26.06.2009. 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.

7. 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 continued. Reference may be made in the case of “Arnab Ranjan Goswami V. Union of India” reported in (2020) 14 SCC 12 wherein para 30 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“30. The fundamental basis on which the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 32 is the filing of multiple FIRs and complaints in various States arising from the same cause of action. The cause of action was founded on a programme which was telecast on R. Bharat on 21 April 2020. FIRs and criminal complaints were lodged against the petitioner in the States of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana and Jharkhand besides the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir. The law concerning multiple criminal proceedings on the same cause of action has been analyzed in a judgment of this Court in TT Antony v State of Kerala (TT Antony). Speaking for a two judge Bench, Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri interpreted the provisions of Section 154 and cognate provisions of the CrPC including Section 173 and observed:

20. Under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus, there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house dia