BIRENDRA PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ application first information report of Jorapokhar P.S. case no.87 of 2009 instituted under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 427, 504, 379, 307 and section 171(A)/171(C) of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 27 of the Arms Act as well as under section 132/135(i)/135(a) of the R.P. Act and also first information report of Jorapokhar P.S. case no.88 of 2009 instituted under sections 147, 148, 149, 341,353,332, 427, 188, 379, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 132/132(ii) of the R.P. Act were sought to be quashed on the ground of same being lodged with mala fide but in course of hearing, one of the first information report which was lodged subsequently, i.e, first information report of Jorapokhar P.S. case no.88 of 2009 was sought to be quashed on the ground that institution of the second first information report for the commission of some offence in course of same transaction for which first information report had already been instituted, would be illegal. It appears that one Ajay Kumar Dubey, lodged a first information report alleging therein that on 23.4.2009 at about 2 p.m. while Irshad and his friends had indulged themselves in casting bogus votes at booth no.220, they were objected but in the meantime, this petitioner who was a candidate of Lok Janshakri Party (L.J.P) came along with others and exhorted others to kill the informant and thereupon he was assaulted badly by the associates of this petitioner and one of the miscreants also fired shot at him but fortunately it did not hit him and then, they ransacked the booth and also destroyed Electronic Voting Machine. Upon it a case was lodged as Jorapokhar P.S. case no.87 of 2009 under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 427, 504, 379, 307 and section 171(A)/171(C) of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 27 of the Arms Act as well as under section 132/135(i)/135(a) of the R.P.Act.

(2.) ON the same day, one Mahavir Kharwar, Police Inspector, Jorapokhar Anchal, Dhanbad submitted a written report to the Officer -in -Charge of Jorapokhar Police Station alleging therein that on the occasion of parliamentary election while he was on duty on 23.4.2009, he received information that some of the accused persons have been putting obstruction in casting votes by the voters at booth no.220, he came over there at 2 -2.15 p.m. and found some persons disturbing the process of voting and hence, he objected them from doing so but they did not pay any heed rather started assaulting one person. Meanwhile, this petitioner reached there and exhorted others to kill him and then they started assaulting him badly. When he tried to rescue him, someone pressed his neck and even tried to snatch his revolver as well as rifle of the Home guards and one of them took away his money kept in the pocket. On the basis of said report, Jorapokhar P.S. case no.88 of 2009 was instituted under sections 147, 148, 149, 341,353,332, 427, 188, 379, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 132/132(ii) of the R.P. Act.

(3.) MR .Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from the allegations made inboth the first information reports, it would be absolutely clear that the incident is the same which allegedly took place on the same day and at same time whereby the informant of Jorapokhar P.S. case no.87 of 2009 has been alleged to have been assaulted by the accused persons whereas in other case Police Inspector is said to have been assaulted. But once first information report was lodged on the basis of information received from the informant of the first case, any subsequent information or statement disclosing any commission of the offence which took place in the same incident cannot give rise to the second first information report, rather such statement would always be falling under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, institution of the second first information report is quite bad and hence, it is fit to be set aside.