Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUBHASH CHAND, J.
Nawlesh Kumar, son of Suresh Prasad Sharma - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 3740 of 2017, Cr.M.P.No. 2645 of 2016, Cr.M.P.No. 2682 of 2016, 4 of 2016, Cr.M.P.No. 2742 of 2016, Cr.M.P.No. 2786 of 2016, Cr.M.P.No. 2871 of 2016
Decided on : 13-03-2023
Double Prosecution - Criminal Law - Section 210, 300, 482 of Cr.P.C. - Article 20 of Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The case involved multiple criminal miscellaneous petitions related to the quashing of FIRs against the petitioner Nawlesh Kumar. The FIRs were related to allegations of fraud and defalcation of compensation awarded for land acquisition for the construction of a railway line.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the separate FIRs lodged by the complainants against the same accused for the same incident were a form of double prosecution, which is not permissible under the law. The court directed the transfer and merger of the criminal proceedings with the Vigilance Case No. 71 of 2015, where the accused was already being prosecuted.
Issues: The main issue was whether the separate FIRs against the accused for the same incident were permissible under the law, and whether they amounted to double prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 210, 300, 482 of Cr.P.C. and Article 20 of the Constitution of India to conclude that the separate FIRs for the same incident against the same accused were not permissible. The court emphasized that there cannot be more than one FIR for the same incident and that double prosecution is barred by the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court directed the transfer and merger of the criminal proceedings with the Vigilance Case No. 71 of 2015, and also ordered the withdrawal of certain investigations to be handed over to the Anti-Corruption Bureau for merger with the Vigilance Case.
JUDGMENT :
Heard the rival submissions of learned Counsels of parties and perused the record.
2. All the above Cr.M.Ps are related to petitioner Nawlesh Kumar pertaining to same cause of actions therefore, all are disposed of with the common order.
3. In Cr.M.P.No. 3740 of 2017 the petitioner Nawlesh Kumar has sought to quash the F.I.R.(Annexure-1) in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 0194 of 2016 dated 04.09.2016 corresponding to G.R.No. 936 of 2016, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
Further I.A. (Cr.) No. 5043 of 2022 was moved in this Cr.M.P. on behalf of the petitioner seeking prayer to permit him to quash the order of taking cognizance on the charge sheet filed in Koderma P.S. Case No. 194 of 2016 (Annexure-5) and also the entire proceeding of the case.
4. Cr.M.P.No. 2645 of 2016 is on behalf of the petitioner Nawlesh Kumar seeking to quash the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) in connection Koderma P.S. Case No. 0163 of 2016 dated 09.08.2016 corresponding to G.R.No. 811 of 2016, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
5. Cr.M.P.No.2682 of 2016 is on behalf of petitioner Nawlesh Kumar seeking to quash the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 0169 of 2016 dated 11.08.2016 corresponding to G.R.No. 824 of 2016.
6. Cr.M.P.No. 2714 of 2016 is on behalf of petitioner Nawlesh Kumar seeking to quash the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 0170 of 2016 dated 11.08.2016, corresponding to G.R.No.825 of 2016 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
7. Cr.M.P.No. 2742 of 2016 is on behalf of petitioner Nawlesh Kumar seeking to quash the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 0167 of 2016 dated 11.08.2016, corresponding to G.R.No. 822 of 2016, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
8. Cr.M.P.No. 2786 of 2016 is on behalf of petitioner Nawlesh Kumar with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 0171 of 2016 dated 11.08.2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 826 of 2016, pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. Further prayer is made by way of I.A. (Cr.) No. 5040 of 2022 seeking to quash the cognizance order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Koderma P.S. Case No. 171 of 2016 and the entire proceeding of the case.
9. Cr.M.P.No. 2795 of 2016 is on behalf of petitioner Nawlesh Kumar with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 0172 of 2016 dated 12.08.2016, corresponding to G.R.No. 841 of 2016, pending before the Court of the learned C.J.M., Koderma.
With further prayer by way of I.A. (Cr.) No. 5039 of 2022 to quash the cognizance order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the C.J.M., Koderma in Koderma P.S. Case No. 172 of 2016 and the entire proceeding of the case.
10. Cr.M.P.No. 2806 of 2016 is on behalf of petitioner Nawlesh Kumar seeking to quash the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 0173 of 2016, corresponding to G.R.No. 842 of 2016, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
Further prayer is made by way of I.A. (Cr.) No. 5042 of 2022 to quash the cognizance order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Koderma P.S. Case No. 0173 of 2016 and the entire criminal proceeding of the case.
11. Cr.M.P.No. 2844 of 2016 is on behalf of petitioner Nawlesh Kumar with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 0166 of 2016 dated 11.08.2016 corresponding to G.R.No.821 of 2016, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. Further prayer is made by way of I.A. (Cr.) No. 5041 of 2022 seeking to quash the cognizance order dated 15.02.2022 in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 166 of 2016 and also the entire proceeding of the case pending before the Court of the learne
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....
The court emphasized that successive FIRs regarding the same incident are impermissible and quashed the FIR based on concealment of previous complaints and forum shopping, affirming the requirement o....
A second FIR is maintainable if it involves distinct allegations not covered in a prior FIR, even if both arise from the same factual circumstance.
Abuse of Process of Law - Multiple FIRs for Same Occurrence
A second FIR with respect to the same offence/occurrence/incident is not maintainable and constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
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
