Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.40139 of 2011 Kamlesh Jha, son of Late Mod Narayan Jha, resident of Village Bhandarsoh, P.S. Manigachhi, District Darbhanga. Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 3. 16.1.2012. Heard Shri Manish Kumar No.13, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Atul Chandra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of an F.I.R. in Manigachhi P.S. Case No.129 of 2011 registered for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a,26,35 of the Arms Act on the plea that petitioner was made accused in Manigachhi P.S. Case No.127 of 2011, which was registered for the offence under [STATUTE] and 27 of the Arms Act. It was submitted that the petitioner though was not named in Manigachhi P.S. Case No.127 of 2011, he was subsequently made accused in that case and subsequently, present F.I.R. under aforesaid sections has been registered. It was pleaded that for the same offence, no 2 second F.I.R. can be lodged. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his argument, has relied on a judgment of apex court reported in 2011(1) PLJR 159 (SC) (Kola Veera Raghav Rai Vs. State of Bihar). I have perused both the F.I.Rs. First F.I.R. i.e. Manigachhi P.S. Case No.127 of 2011 was registered for the offence under [STATUTE] and 27 of the Arms Act. Subsequently, the petitioner was taken into custody in Manigachhi P.S. Case No.127 of 2011 wherein he made a disclosure statement and thereafter, a raid was conducted in the house of the petitioner and in that raid, arms and ammunitions were recovered and thereafter, second F.I.R. has been lodged. The second F.I.R. has been lodged completely with a different transaction and as such it cannot be said that for the same offence he has been made accused in the second case. The decision i.e. in Kola Veera Raghav Rai’s case (Supra) has got no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case before the 3 Supreme Court, the appellants were already convicted. However, in the present case, F.I.R. has been registered and investigation is still continuing. I do not find any merit in the petition. The petition stands dismissed. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 394

Statute Text:
Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. Person voluntarily causing hurt in committing or attempting to commit robbery, or any other person jointly concerned in such robbery. If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.