SHYAMA NAND JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Bimal Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kumar Uday Pratap, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri Suresh Prasad Barnawal, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Opp.Party no.2.

(2.) The petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of F.I.R. of Katihar Mufassil P.S. Case No.66 of 2008 dated 05.06.2008 registered for the offence under Sections 363, 365, 366A, 376, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (x) (xi) (xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (herein after referred to as the "SC/ST Act"). The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding arising out of the aforesaid Katihar Mufassil P.S. Case No.66 of 2008. Of course, while filing the present petition, the petitioners have not brought on record any order of cognizance. In this case, earlier by order dated 13.07.2009 case diary was called for and the same has been received.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the F.I.R. submits that for the same occurrence, two F.I.Rs cannot be lodged. It has also been argued that the present F.I.R., which has been lodged on the basis of complaint petition filed before the court below, has palpably been filed maliciously and to wreak vengeance against the petitioners. On the aforesaid two grounds, prayer has been made for quashing of F.I.R. and without order of cognizance for quashing of entire proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his argument has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (T.T. Antony V/s. State of Kerala & Ore, 2001 AIR(SC) 2637). He submits that the Apex Court has held that for the same occurrence, two F.I.Rs cannot be lodged. He has further referred to a Judgment (Lalit Kumar Singh & Ors V/s. State of Bihar & Anr, 2006 3 PLJR 610). He submits that earlier a case was instituted against son of petitioners, in which also though chargesheet was submitted, during the investigation itself, the victim girl had made statement that she had voluntarily solemnized marriage with the son of the petitioners .In that case, the petitioners were not accused but at subsequent stage, the present case was lodged for implicating the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention to two F.I.Rs i.e. Annexure-1/ copy of Katihar Mufassil RS. Case no.66 of 2008 registered for the offence under Sections 363,365,366A, 376 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(x)(xi) (xii) of the SC/ST Act and Annexure-2/ copy of F.I.R of Katihar RS. Case No. 43 of 2008 registered for the offence under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code.