##PAGE1##

[2025:JHHC:38692]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No.389 of 2024

------

Chandi Gayali @ Ravikant Gayali, aged about 32 years, Son of

Anath Gayali, Resident of Gram Brahamadiha Basti, Sinidih,

P.O. Tundoo, P.S. Madhuban, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand,

828128 … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Vijay Paswan, S/o Ram Charitra Paswan, aged about 45

years, R/o Kharkhari, Narayan Dhora, P.O. + P.S.-

Madhuban, Dist- Dhanbad, Jharkhand

… Opposite Parties

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Kumar Jha, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

For the O.P. No.2 : None

------

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party

No.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite

of repeated calls.

3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking

the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal

proceeding along with the First Information Report in connection

with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 68 of 2022 on the ground that the same

1

Cr. M.P. No.389 of 2024

[2025:JHHC:38692]

is the second First Information Report in respect of which Madhuban

P.S. Case No. 66 of 2022 has been registered.

4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner along with the co-

accused persons being member of an unlawful assembly, armed with

deadly weapons, caused explosion by using explosive substances

illegally, set fire to the shop of the informant and being not members

of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes intentionally, insulted and

intimidated the informant and his associates who are the members of

the Scheduled Castes, in a place within public view and abused them

by their caste name. The occurrence took place at 11:00 A.M. on

07.11.2022 in respect of which Madhuban P.S. Case No. 66 of 2022 was

instituted on the basis of the written report submitted by the

informant-owner of the shop namely Dilu Paswan. Madhuban P.S.

Case No. 68 of 2022 was instituted on the basis of the written report

submitted by the informant of the said case who is the maternal uncle

of the informant of Madhuban P.S. Case No. 66 of 2022 and therein

the allegations made by the informant is that as the informant reached

the place of occurrence on getting information that the shop of his

nephew has been set on fire, the petitioners and the co-accused

persons of the case abused him, insulted him and fired upon him

from gun and revolver and also abused him by his caste name.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying

upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case

2

Cr. M.P. No.389 of 2024

[2025:JHHC:38692]

of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC

181 paragraph-27 of which reads as under:-

“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 sub-section

(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 case. In our view a case of fresh investigation

based o