LAWS(JHAR)-2012-1-105

SUDHANSHU TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On January 06, 2012
Sudhanshu Trivedi Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Complaint case No. 2507 of 2009 has been submitted by the brother-in-law of Kaushal Kishore Sahay and the said complaint was forwarded to the Police Station, obviously under Section 156(3), Cr P.C, but belatedly on 18th January, 2011 FIR was registered by the police being Baraitu PS Case No. 24 of 2011. This Kaushal Kishore Sahay himself submitted another report to the police, copy of which has been placed on record at page No. 29 of the writ petition.

(2.) According to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, there cannot be two FIR for the same offence. It is submitted that the other co-accused have been granted anticipatory ball by the order of the High Court. It is submitted that there was no involvement of the writ petitioner in any manner and, therefore, criminal proceeding may be quashed. It is also submitted that even a Title Suit is pending before the Civil Court in the matter where petitioner's contention is that he has purchased the property much prior to the alleged purchase by the complainant and, therefore, in view of the pendency of the civil suit also, this criminal case cannot continue. It is also submitted that the parties may be referred to the Lok Adalat.

(3.) I have considered the submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the report submitted by Kaushal Kishore Sahay, which appears to be dated 15th April, 2010, to the Officer-in-charge of the Bariatu police station, Ranchi as well as FIR being Baraitu PS Case No. 24 of 2011, which has been registered on making a complaint by the brother-in-law of the complainant, Kaushal Kishore Sahay. So far as one offence is concerned, there can be one investigation and one challan or Final Form can be filed. In the presenr case, according to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner himself, challan has been filed against all the other accused persons, except the present petitioner and Learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed that his interest may be protected.