SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2279

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Bajrangi Paswan @ Dharmendra Kumar, aged about 35 years, S/o Jodha Paswan @ Yodha Paswan - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Cr.M.P. No. 3010 of 2025
Decided On : 15-10-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Adv., Ms. Juhi Kumari, Advocate, Ms. Diksha Rani, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl.PP

The registration of a second FIR for the same incident or transaction is legally prohibited unless it qualifies as a counter-case. A subsequent FIR filed during the course of the same transaction constitutes an impermissible abuse of the investigative process and a violation of constitutional rights.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 - Section 181 and Section 528 - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Registration of second FIR - Prohibition against multiple investigations for the same occurrence - Principle that second FIR in respect of the same transaction or connected cognizable offence is impermissible, unless it operates as a counter-case - Abuse of statutory investigative power. (Paras 5, 9, 11 and 12)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of proceedings - Where subsequent FIR relates to the same transaction and contains no new allegations, it is unsustainable in law - Consequence test must be applied to determine if the subsequent report is a mere repetition or a separate counter-version. (Paras 11 and 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a petition to quash a criminal proceeding initiated through a subsequent report regarding an incident for which other reports had already been registered. The petitioner argued that the subsequent filing constituted an illegal attempt at a fresh investigation for the same transaction, lacking any new facts or a separate version of the event. The opposing party acknowledged that the incident alleged in the subsequent report was already covered by prior reports.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the subsequent report did not include any new facts or distinct occurrences compared to the earlier reports filed for the same incident. Applying the consequence test, the court determined that the subsequent FIR was not a counter-case but a prohibited attempt at re-investigating the same transaction, thus violating legal standards against repetitive filings for the same incident.

Issues: Whether the registration of an additional report for the same incident or transaction is legally permissible when it does not constitute a counter-complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: The law mandates that there can be no fresh investigation via a second report for the same occurrence or transaction. Allowing such filings would constitute an abuse of the statutory power of investigation and violate fundamental protections, as the earliest report must cover the investigation of the entire transaction. A subsequent report is only maintainable if it presents a distinct version, such as a counter-case.

Result: Petition allowed. The entire criminal proceeding and the impugned report are quashed and set aside.

Table of Content
1. establishing the factual context regarding the initiation of criminal proceedings and the registration of multiple firs for the same incident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. whether a second fir is legally permissible when it relates to the same transaction covered by earlier firs. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. the principle that subsequent firs for the same occurrence are impermissible, necessitating the quashing of non-counter-case investigations. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Madhuban P.S. case no. 03 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 324 (5), 326 of the BNS, 2023, pending in the court of learned JMFC, Dhanbad on the ground that this is the second FIR in respect of same occurrence for which, earlier Madhuban P.S. case no. 01 of 2025 and Madhuban P.S. case no. 02 of 2025 have already been registered.

3. The brief fact of his case is that this case, being the Madhuban P.S. case no. 03 of 2025 has been registered, basing upon the written report submitted by the Circle Inspector of Mahuda Circle office, alleging therein that on 09.01.2025 at about 10.30 AM, there was a fight between two groups, one led by Karu Yadav and the other by Sheikh Guddu, to have dominance over the Babudih colliery. There were arson, firing, assaults and counter assaults between the members of the two groups. On getting the information, the informant reached the place of occurrence, along with the police force at about 11.00 AM and saw the occurrence. The fire was extinguished by the fire engines and information was received that the supporters of Karu Yadav have torched the AJSU party office. The informant also saw the same. The persons present at the place alleged that it is the supporters of Karu Yadav who have committed the said occurrence. Madhuban (Dharmabandh O.P.) P.S. case no. 01 of 2025 has been instituted upon written report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police – cum- In-charge Dharmabandh O.P. alleging that on 09.01.2025, at 10.00 AM, the outsourcing company of BCCL namely M/s Hilltop company for excavation of coal started the work of demarcation of the land. The outsourcing Hilltop company has sublet the work to Karu Yadav. The local residents were opposing Karu Yadav for their own reasons. The group of Karu Yadav was opposed by the group of Sheikh Tohid @ Dablu. Subhash Singh is a AJSU supporter and with the help of Subhash Singh and the villagers, the Hon’ble Member of Parliament from Giridih, held meetings at the Babudih office and BCCL area. At about 11.00 AM, about 100 persons of Karu Yadav, 61 of whom, have been named in FIR along with others, on motorcycle and other vehicles, armed with deadly weapons, reached Babudih place of work. From the other side, Sk. Tohid along with about 100 persons, 61 of whom have been named, also came on motorcycles and other vehicles, armed with deadly weapons and opposed the work. The informant along with armed forces and other officers reached the place of occurrence. The informant tried to pacify the parties but both the parties did not oblige the informant and started to abuse each other, consequent upon exchange of abuse, there was assault, counter assault, firing and blasting of bombs. Several vehicles were damaged and torched. Subhash Singh sustained bullet injury on his leg. More force reached at the place of occurrence, after getting the information and after arrival of sufficient number of forces; the miscreants and accused persons, fled away and they were chased away by the police personnel. Madhuban P.S. case no. 02 of 2025 has been instituted on the basis of the written report submitted by the Sub-Inspector–

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top