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.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528. of B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with S.T. Case No.34 of 2024 arising out of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 though in the petition because of printing error S.T. Case number has erroneously been mentioned as 33 of 2024. Prayer has also been made for quashing the order dated 30.03.2024 whereby and where under charges have been framed inter alia against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 323, 307, 504 and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 25 (1-B) (a)/26/35/25 (1-AAA) of the ARMS ACT , 1959 on the ground that the said case is based upon the second F.I.R. for the self-same occurrence for which Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of 2023 has been registered and in which after submission of charge-sheet, charges have been framed inter alia against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 , 307, 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and under Section 27(2) of the ARMS ACT , 1959 vide order dated 30.03.2024 passed in S.T. Case No.33 of 2024 by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh.

3. The brief facts of the case is that Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of 2023 was registered for the occurrence which took place on 13.08.2023 at 12:00 Noon and the allegation is that the petitioner herein along with the co-accused persons were demolishing the boundary wall constructed on the land of the informant by using J.C.B. Machine and on being protested by the informant and his associates, the petitioner fired upon Janki Yadav and Pawan Kumar Yadav causing them gunshot injury.

4. Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 has been registered on the basis of self-statement of Sub-Inspector of Police who reached the place of occurrence after getting information of the occurrence in respect of which the F.I.R. of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of 2023 has been registered and police apprehended the petitioner who is also the accused of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of 2023 and recovered fire arms and ammunition from him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Manish Varma & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr. M.P. No. 1735 of 2023 dated 06.05.2024 and submits that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Others, (2001) 6 SCC 181 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that a fresh investigation based on second or successive F.I.Rs not being a counter-case filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first F.I.R., either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in that case this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prem Chand Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2020) 3 SCC 54 paragraph-11 of which reads as under:-

“11. It is, therefore, apparent that the subject-matter of both the FIRs is the same general power of attorney dated 2-5-1985 and the sales made by the appellant in pursuanc