Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Harish Chandra Pandey S/o Late Chakrapani Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the First Information Report in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No.236 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner on the ground that the same is the second F.I.R. in respect of which the First Information Report of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.123 of 2019 has been registered.
3. The brief facts of the case is that while the petitioner was posted as Assistant-cum-Store Keeper of Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad, entries were made in the Stock Register without the signature of any person against the entries and the petitioner being the part of larger conspiracy, did the same to facilitate payment of bills relating to the articles which were not supplied by way of cheating and there is also allegations against the petitioner of committing forgery and using forged documents as genuine and cheating and thereby inducing Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad to pay
The registration of a second FIR is permissible when it reveals new facts or involves separate incidents, maintaining the integrity of legal proceedings.
The registration of multiple FIRs for the same occurrence is prohibited under Section 162 CrPC, as it constitutes an abuse of process of law.
A second FIR cannot be registered for the same occurrence if an investigation is already ongoing for the first FIR, as it constitutes an abuse of process of law.
Point of law: scope of doctrine of double jeopardy, observing that “in order to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution, there must have been both prosecution and punishment in re....
Point of Law : The concept is of 'same offence' under Article 20(2) and section 300 Cr.PC. In case distinct offences are being committed there has to be independent trial for each of such offence bas....
The registration of multiple FIRs by the same person against the same accused for the same alleged offence constitutes an abuse of process of law and violates constitutional rights.
A second FIR is permissible if it involves distinct offences or new facts, as established in T. T. Antony v. State, maintaining legal integrity in criminal investigations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the First Information Report and the test of 'sameness' to determine the permissibility of multiple FIRs for the same occurrence.
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.
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
