Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 765

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Pramod Jaiswal @ Pramod Kumar Jaiswal, son of Radheshyam Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 794 of 2026
Decided on : 05-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar Advocate Mr. Jazeb Iqbal, Advocate Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, GP I Mr. Saurav Mahto, AC to GP I

A second FIR regarding the same occurrence or transaction is impermissible in law. If the substratum of two FIRs is common or the second originates as a consequence of the first, it constitutes an abuse of process and must be quashed to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506 - Arms Act Sections 25, 26, 35 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Second FIR/Successive FIR - Principle against parallel investigations for the same occurrence or transaction - Where the substratum of two FIRs is common, subsequent registration is impermissible - Consequence test applies to determine whether offences are part of the same transaction - Abuse of process must be checked even post-charge sheet (Paras 9, 12, 13).

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Court power - High Courts can exercise supervisory jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or abuse of process even if criminal proceedings have advanced to the trial or charge-sheet stage (Para 9).

Facts of the case:
Two criminal cases were registered, both arising from the same incident. The initial report was filed regarding a dispute over property and resultant violence. A subsequent report was filed by law enforcement officials alleging the recovery of weapons from the accused shortly after the first incident. The petitioner sought the quashing of the second case on the grounds that it constitutes a second and impermissible FIR for the same transaction.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the second FIR was a direct consequence of the incident reported in the first FIR. Given that the substratum of both filings is identical and they arise from the same transaction, the second filing is legally impermissible. Continuing the proceedings for the second FIR constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.

Issues: Whether a second FIR can be registered regarding the same occurrence where an investigation into the initial FIR is ongoing and whether the subsequent recovery of evidence warrants a fresh registration against the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that registering a second FIR for the same transaction or for an offence that is a direct consequence of the initial incident is prohibited. The second filing must be treated as part of the first. Proceeding with both investigations for the same incident constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

Result: Criminal miscellaneous petition allowed; proceeding quashed qua the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. invocation of section 528 bnss 2023 for quashing criminal proceedings. (Para 1 , 2)
2. registration of multiple firs arising from the same incident. (Para 3 , 4)
3. prohibition of second fir for the same occurrence and connected offences. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. quashing second fir when it arises as a consequence of the first fir. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition.

3. Since, hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous.

Cr.M.P. No. 794 of 2026

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 the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with S.T. Case No.153 of 2025 arising out of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506, 120B IPC and under section 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35, 25 (1-AAA) of Arms Act. Further prayer has been made to quash and set aside the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh has framed charges against the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case for having committed the offence punishable under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 25 (1- AAA)/35, 26(2) and 35 of Arms Act. and the case is currently pending before the Court of learned 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners who are also the accused of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of 2023 and recovered fire arms and ammunition from them.

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 reported in (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) Cr.P.C 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 submit 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 reported in (2020) 3 SCC 54 paragraph-11 of which reads as under:-

“11. It

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 765

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHIANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.Pramod Jaiswal @ Pramod Kumar Jaiswal, son of Radheshyam Jaiswal – Appellant VersusThe State of Jharkhand – Respondent Cr.M.P. No. 794 of 2026Decided on : 05-05-2026

A second FIR regarding the same occurrence or transaction is impermissible in law. If the substratum of two FIRs is common or the second originates as a consequence of the first, it constitutes an abuse of process and must be quashed to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Pramod Jaiswal @ Pramod Kumar Jaiswal, son of Radheshyam Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 794 of 2026
Decided on : 05-05-2026