RAM SAGAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has asked for quashing of FIR of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 351/2010 by way of filing instant writ petition.

(2.) With regard to apprehension of Maoist regarding which confidential information was received, a raiding party was constituted and house of Bhola Sah was cordoned in between night of 15/16.07.2005 and during course thereof, firing was also effected perceiving coming out of members of extremist group resulting casualty of Seema Devi as well as Parvati Devi. During course of search, Rakesh Kumar s/o of Bhola Sah along with Chandan Kumar were apprehended along with recovery of cartridges of different bores, country made pistol, charger for which Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 408/2005 was registered on the statement of petitioner, Ram Sagar Sharma who was the then Officer-in-charge of Sitamarhi P.S. During midst of investigation, the Government entrusted the investigation to CID who, after concluding the same filed final report. Simultaneously, also observed that Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 408/2005 was intentionally drawn up to cover up their own fault by way of false seizure of arms and ammunition as well as fate disclosure and for that, as per, direction two cases were filed one against the petitioner relating to recovery of fire arms/ammunition, the subject matter of instant writ and the other against the members of armed force who had fired resulting death.

(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the present FIR happens to be out and out the second FIR for the same occurrence for which Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 408/2005 was registered. It has further been submitted that second FIR for the same occurrence is not at all permissible because of the fact that same happens to be barred in terms of Section 162 Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that since Ram Lal Narang s case, 1979 2 SCC 322 even upto Amit Sah s Case, 2013 2 PLJR(SC) 373, it has conclusively been held that second FIR for the same occurrence is not at all permissible because of the fact that subsequent prosecution is found prohibited under the banner of double jeopardy under Section 300 Cr.P.C. Apart from this, it has been submitted that the present FIR happens to be bad in the background of pendency of protest petition which will callow, in case, is proceeded with as a complaint petition followed with cognizance.