A second FIR for the same incident constitutes an abuse of process, and no person should face double jeopardy for identical offenses.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the orders dated 07.11.2019 and 08.08.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Seraikella in connection with Rajnagar P.S. Case No.30 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.507 of 2017(S), and S.T. Case No.89 of 2017, whereby and where under the learned S.D.J.M., Seraikella found prima facie case in respect of the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 302, 353, 427, 504, 506, 435, 333 of the Indian Penal Code and committed the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella, which has been registered as S.T. Case No.153 of 2025 after commitment.

3. The brief fact of the case is that on 18.05.2017, the villagers of village Sobhapur, Kamalpur, Daandu, Gopinathpur etc. assembled in the village Sobhapur and assaulted Murtaza Ansari who used to hide the child lifters in his house by giving shelter to them. Police along with the Circle Officer as well as the Block Development Officer reached the place of occurrence. The villagers used criminal force by deterring the informant as well as the Circle Officer in discharging their duties by stopping their vehicle on the way to the said village and torched the said vehicle, causing injuries to 2 to 3 constables. The victim could be rescued and he was taken to hospital after more police force arrived but the victim died. On the basis of the self-same occurrence, firstly, on the written report of the Sub-Inspector, Rajnagar P.S. Case No.29 of 2017 was registered and police took up investigation of the case and submitted charge-sheet. The accused persons faced trial but some of the accused persons were convicted and others were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Sessions Trial No.86 of 2017 dated 16.07.2018.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerela & Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 , paragraph Nos. 25 and 27 of which read as under:-

“25. Where the police transgresses its statutory power of investigation the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and this Court in an appropriate case can interdict the investigation to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that subsection (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given