IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No 76655 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna
1. CHANDAN KUMAR, aged about 31 years (Male), S/o Mithilesh Singh,
Resident of Village- Sadikpur, P.S.- Barh, District- Patna. A/p- Satyam
Enclave, Flat No. -201, Pharmacist Colony, Bhagwat Nagar, P.S.-
Agamkuan, District- Patna.
2. Mithilesh Singh, aged about 55 years (Male), S/o Late Ram Pravesh Singh,
Resident of Village- Sadikpur, P.S.- Barh, District- Patna. A/p- Satyam
Enclave, Flat No. -201, Pharmacist Colony, Bhagwat Nagar, P.S.-
Agamkuan, District- Patna.
3. Asha Singh, aged about 55 years (Female), W/o Mithilesh Singh Resident of
Village- Sadikpur, P.S.- Barh, District- Patna. A/p- Satyam Enclave, Flat No.
-201, Pharmacist Colony, Bhagwat Nagar, P.S.- Agamkuan, District- Patna.
… … Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. Kumari Archana, aged about 27 years (Female), W/o Chandan Kumar, D/o
Mithilesh Kumar Singh A/p R/o H/No.- 36, Shanti Enclave, Azad Path,
Gardanibagh, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna.
… … Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajeev Ranjan No.II
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dashrath Mehta
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-12-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
APP for the State.
2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in
respect of the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code,
the same informant (wife of the petitioner) earlier lodged Mahila
Police Station (for brevity PS) Case No 125 of 2018. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76655 of 2019 dt.05-12-2019
2/3
submitted that in respect of the same offence, a second first
information report (for brevity, FIR) bearing Mahila PS Case No
85 of 2019 has been lodged. Referring to the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Babubhai -Versus- State of Gujarat Others,
(2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 254, he submits that Section 154
of Criminal Procedure Code (for brevity, Cr P C), there should be
only one FIR in respect of one transaction. There can be no
second FIR in respect of the same transaction and at best,
subsequent information should be treated as one under Section 161
of Cr P C. The proposition of law is axiomatic and cannot be
disputed.
3 The FIR arising out of Mahila PS Case No 85 of
2019, however, from a bare perusal of the same, seems to have
been lodged due to intimidation being meted out to the informant
when she was doing pairvi in the case arising out of the earlier
case, namely, Mahila PS Case No 125 of 2018. Merely, for the
fact that the informant has referred to the background, i e, the
earlier case in the second FIR, does not make the instant case a
second FIR in respect of the same transaction. The second FIR
alleges coercion, duress and intimidation against the petitioners to
bring about a settlement in the earlier criminal proceedings, which
constitutes a fresh allegation.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76655 of 2019 dt.05-12-2019
3/3
4 In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the
prosecution, arising out of the second case, is in respect of the
same/earlier transaction. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to
accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5 No case is made out for exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr P C. This application is dismissed.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.12.2019
Transmission Date 09.12.2019
