PRAMOD JAISWAL ALIAS PRAMOD KUMAR JAISWAL vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
(2026:JHHC:13274)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 794 of 2026
Pramod Jaiswal @ Pramod Kumar Jaiswal, aged about 52 years, son of
Radheshyam Jaiswal, resident of Murramkala, P.O. & P.S.-Ramgarh,
Dist.-Ramgarh
.... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…. Opp. Party
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
…..
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar Advocate
: Mr. Jazeb Iqbal, Advocate
: Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate
: Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, GP I
: Mr. Saurav Mahto, AC to GP I
…..
By the Court:-
I.A. No.6284 of 2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for
early hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition.
3. Since, hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up
today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being
infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Cr.M.P. No. 794 of 2026
1. Heard the parties.
1
Cr.M.P. No.794 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:13274)
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with
the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the
FIR in connection with S.T. Case No.153 of 2025 arising out of
Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 registered for the offences
punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506, 120B
IPC and under section 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35, 25 (1-AAA) of Arms Act.
Further prayer has been made to quash and set aside the order
dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh whereby and whereunder the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC,
Ramgarh has framed charges against the petitioner in connection
with the aforesaid case for having committed the offence
punishable under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506 of IPC
and Sections 25 (1- AAA)/35, 26(2) and 35 of Arms Act. and the
case is currently pending before the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh.
3. The brief facts of the case is that Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170
of 2023 was registered for the occurrence which took place on
13.08.2023 at 12:00 Noon and the allegation is that the petitioners
herein along with the co-accused persons were demolishing the
boundary wall constructed on the land of the informant by using
J.C.B. Machine and on being protested by the informant and his
associates, the petitioners fired upon Janki Yadav and Pawan
Kumar Yadav causing them gunshot injury.
2
Cr.M.P. No.794 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:13274)
4. Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 has been registered on the
basis of self-statement of Sub-Inspector of Police who reached the
place of occurrence after getting information of the occurrence in
respect of which the F.I.R. of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of
2023 has been registered and police apprehended the petitioners
who are also the accused of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of
2023 and recovered fire arms and ammunition from them.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this
Court in the case of Manish Varma & Another vs. The State of
Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.1735 of 2023 dated
06.05.2024 and submits that therein this Court relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Others reported in (2001) 6
SCC 181 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held
that a fresh investigation based on second or successive F.I.Rs not
being a counter-case filed in connection with the same or
connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in
the course of the same transaction and in respect of which
pursuant to the first F.I.R., either investigation is under way or
final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C has been forwarded to the
Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submit that in that case
this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Prem Chand Singh vs. State of Uttar
3
Cr.M.P. No.794 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:13274)
Pradesh & Another reported in (2020) 3 SCC 54 paragraph-11 of
which reads as under:-
“11. It is, therefore, apparent that the subject-matter of
both the FIRs is the same general power of attorney dated
2-5-1985 and the sales made by the appellant in
pursuance of the same. If the substratum of the two FIRs
are common, the mere addition of Sections 467, 468 and
471 in the subsequent FIR cannot be considered as
different ingredients to justify the latter FIR as being
based on different materials, allegations and grounds.”
(Emphasis supplied)
and submits that since the substratum of the two F.I.Rs are
common, the mere addition of certain offences in the subsequent
F.I.R. cannot be considered as different ingredients to justify
Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023.
7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amitbhai
Anilchandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of Investigation &
Another (2013) 6 SCC 348
reported in , paragraph-58.3 of which
reads as under:-
“58.3. Even after filing of such a report, if he comes into
possession of further information or material, there is no
need to register a fresh FIR, he is empowered to make
further investigation normally with the leave of the court
and where during further investigation, he collects further
evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the
same with one or more further reports which is evident
from sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code. Under the
scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157,
162, 169, 170 and 173 of the Code, only the earliest or the
first information in regard to the commission of a
cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section
154 of the Code. Thus, there can be no second FIR and,
consequently, there can be no fresh investigation on
receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the
same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident
4
Cr.M.P. No.794 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:13274)
giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.” (Emphasis
supplied)
8. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
this Court has also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of C. Muniappan & Others vs.
State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567 wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has referred to the consequence
test by observing that if any part of second F.I.R. arises as a
consequence of the offence alleged in the first F.I.R.; then the
offences covered by both the F.I.Rs are the same and accordingly,
the second F.I.R. will be impermissible in law or in other words,
the offence covered in both the F.I.Rs shall have to be treated as
part of the first F.I.R.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anand
Kumar Mohatta & Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi),
Department of Home & Another reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706
paragraph-16 of which reads as under:-
“16. There is nothing in the words of this section which
restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent
the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only
to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that
the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC even when the discharge application is pending
with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000)
2 SCC 636, para 7 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513. Umesh Kumar
v. State of A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591, para 20 : (2014) 1
SCC (Cri) 338 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 237] . Indeed, it
would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated
against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR
but not if it has advanced and the allegations have
materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could
be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands
5
Cr.M.P. No.794 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:13274)
aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet
after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to
prevent abuse of process of power of any court.”
(Emphasis supplied)
and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
reiterated that even when the discharge application is pending
with the trial court; High Court can exercise the jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of
process of court or miscarriage of justice.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly relies upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Others
reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770 paragraph-107 of which reads as
under:-
“107. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action
is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and
consequential proceedings would fall through for the
reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In
such a fact situation, the legal maxim sublato fundamento
cadit opusmeaning thereby that foundation being
removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies
on all scores in the present case.” (Emphasis supplied)
and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
reiterated the settled proposition of law that if initial action is not
in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential
proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality
strikes at the root of the order. Hence, it is submitted that the
prayer as prayed by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P. be allowed.
6
Cr.M.P. No.794 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:13274)
11. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this
criminal miscellaneous petition.
12. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is
pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has
categorically been mentioned in paragraph-27 of the case of T.T.
Antony vs. State of Kerala & Others (supra) that a second F.I.R. is
not maintainable unless it is a counter case. It is also a settled
principle of law as has been held in the case of Prem Chand Singh
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (supra) that if the
substratum of the two F.I.Rs are common, the mere addition of
some additional section in the subsequent F.I.R. cannot be
considered as different ingredients, to justify latter F.I.R.
13. Now coming to the consequence test as has been laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of C. Muniappan
& Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu
(supra), to the facts of this case,
this Court is of the considered view that the offence forming part
of the second F.I.R. i.e. recovery of ammunition arises as a
consequence of the offence committed in the first F.I.R. i.e. the
Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.170 of 2023. Thus, the offences
covered by both the F.I.Rs in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S.
Case No.170 of 2023 and Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023
are same. Hence, the F.I.R. of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of
2023 is impermissible in law and the offences covered by both the
7
Cr.M.P. No.794 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:13274)
F.I.Rs shall have to be treated as part of the Mandu (Kuju) P.S.
Case No.170 of 2023. Therefore, the F.I.R. of Mandu (Kuju) P.S.
Case No.171 of 2023 is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Hence, continuation of the entire criminal proceeding
including the First Information Report in connection with Mandu
(Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 and the proceedings in connection
with S.T. Case No.153 of 2025 will amount to abuse of process of
law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal
proceeding including the First Information Report in connection
with S.T. Case No.153 of 2025 arising out of Mandu (Kuju) P.S.
Case No.171 of 2023 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I-
cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh, be quashed and set aside qua
the petitioner only.
14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the First
Information Report in connection with S.T. Case No.153 of 2025
arising out of Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 of the court
of Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh,
is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.
15. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated the 5 May, 2026
AFR/Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 07/05/2026
8
Cr.M.P. No.794 of 2026