DINA NATH SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the order of cognizance dated 24.12.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in Sadar Saharsa P.S. Case No. 340/2000, which is pending in the court of Fast Track Court No. 7, Saharsa bearing Sessions Trial No. 169/ 06, thereby and thereunder cognizance has been taken under Sections 364, 365, 120(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others.

(2.) THE facts which emerge from two police station cases bearing Sadar Saharsa P.S. Case No. 340/2000 and Phulwarisarif P.S. Case No. 313 of 2000 are as follows: The husband of Opposite Party no. 2, Mahanti Sharma, was driver in transport business of Kuldeep Jaiswal and Sandeep Jaiswal of Saharsa. He had some dues as wages against the owner of transport business. On 27.8.2000 the aforesaid accused persons sent Mahanti Sharma as driver and Manoj Sharma as Khalashi with truck loaded with Sisam log bearing registration no. WB. 03A/7416 to Mirzapur. Thereafter, they did not return. Opposite Party no. 2 suspected their kidnapping and murder at the hands of the accused persons in order to misappropriate dues. Ultimately Opposite Party no. 2 filed a complaint case on 19.10.2000 before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa under sections 364, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The same was forwarded to Sadar Saharsa police station for institution and investigation. The police on 4.11.2000 registered a case against the aforesaid two accused persons under Sections 364, 365 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge - sheet against them including this petitioner also. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide impugned order took cognizance.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that there cannot be two first information reports for the same offence. The earliest statement of the occurrence can be treated as first information report. The police has no power to institute the separate case and make investigation on the basis of subsequent statement with regard to same occurrence. Therefore, taking cognizance on the basis of the investigation made in subsequent first information report is abuse of process of the court and hence it must be quashed.