SATYA PRAKASH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has asked for to quash order dated 09.12.2015 whereby and whereunder, the learned lower court has summoned the petitioner to face trial for an offence punishable under Section 25(1-b) a, 27 of the Arms Act relating to Manjhi P.S. Case No.166/2015.

(2.) Briefly, the case of the prosecution which is based upon the self-statement of ASI, Sri Ram Ram dated 06.08.2015 is that on the same day at about 03:00 PM he received telephonic information with regard to shooting of his wife by the petitioner Satya Prakash Tiwari son-in-law of Chandra Prakash Mishra at village Bhalua Khurd. Accordingly, he reached at the house of Chandra Prakash Mishra lying at village-Bhalua Khurdh where had seen presence of large number of persons as well as having one person locked in a room. On query, the family members disclosed that he is Satya Prakash Tiwary, son of Nagendra Tiwary of village-Sadhpur Balli, P.S.-Kopa, District-Saran who, at about 02:00 PM came to his Sasural where, his pregnant wife was staying. Just after coming, he began to abuse her whereupon, she protested. Satya Prakash Tiwary took out pistol and began to fire causing severe injury to his wife Silpi Devi. Bhabhi of Silpi Devi namely, Renu Devi came in rescue who was also shot at. Then, thereafter, the other family members anyhow caught hold him and snatched away firearm and confined in a room. Police was informed. One of the family members namely Hridya Kumar Mishra has produced countrymade pistol, three live cartridges, one empty cartridges which has been seized in presence of Ram Kumar Yadav and Ranjeet Yadav and for that production cum seizure list has been prepared. Then thereafter, Satya Prakash was taken out from the room and was asked for to produce relevant document regarding possession of the same which he declined. On the written report of the informant ASI Sri Ram Ram, Manjhi P.S. Case No.166/2015 has been registered, investigated upon and after concluding the same, charge sheet has been submitted followed with order impugned whereupon petitioner has been summoned to face trial for an offence as indicated hereinabove. It is further evident from different annexures that the wife of the petitioner namely Silpi Devi gave her fardbeyan in an injured condition whereupon Manjhi P.S. Case No.164/2015 has been registered against others including the petitioner. Side by side petitioner filed Complaint Petition No. 2456/2015 which was sent to the local police and on the basis thereof, Manjhi P.S. Case No.241/2015 has been registered against his Sasuralwala.

(3.) It has been submitted at the end of the petitioner that order impugned is bad, illegal and without any jurisdiction, in the background of the fact that for the same occurrence no two FIR is permissible as second FIR happens to be barred in the eye of law more particularly, considering the prohibition as prescribed under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. That being so, the learned lower court should not have summoned the petitioner to face trial for an offence punishable under Section 25(1-b)a, 27 of the Arms Act.