IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC NO.526 OF 2007 (1) SHEOJI SINGH (2) VIJAY KUMAR SINGH @ MUNNA THAKUR (3) LALLU THAKUR @ SANTOSH KUMAR (4) TUNNU THAKUR @ SANJAY KUMAR (5) LALAN SAH AND (6) DHANANJAY UPADHYAY VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6 12.09.2008. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners who are accused in Marhuara PS cse no. 108/07 dated 21.5.2007 filed for offences under sections 147,148,149,307,120B I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act, have filed the instant writ petition seeking preliminary investigation of the matter or to hand it over to another responsible officer of any district.. Subsequently, they filed IA No. 1623 of 2007 for amalgamation of the FIR of Marhuara PS case no. 108 of 2007 dated 21.5.2007 under sections 147,148,149,307,120B I.P.C. and 27 with Marhuara PS case no. 109 of 2007 dated 21.5.2007 filed for offences under sections 341,323 and 34 I.P.C. Facts giving rise to the instant case are as follows:- On 20.5.2007 three miscreants came to Marhaura bazaar on motorcycle, opened fire causing injury to one Arun Kumar Singh, son of Ganesh Prasad Singh, resident of Marhaura. The injured was taken to the PMCH where his statement was recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector of Pir Bahore P. S., on 20.5.2007 at 6.30 pm, in which he named seven persons as an accused including the petitioners. He alleged that Tuna Thakur ( petitioner no.4) shot at his head, thereafter Lal Mohan Singh fired hitting below his right side of the chest. Munna Thakur (petitioner no.2 who happens to be son of petitioner no.1) opened fire on the right elbow of the injured/informant of the aforesaid P.S. case. The fard beyan of Arun Kumar Singh gave rise of the above P.S. case. In the meantime, a local chaukidar found unusual crowd near Allahabad - 2 - Bank, Marhaura, where people had caught one person, whose name transpired to be Lal Mohan Singh. Ganesh Singh present in the crowd stated that the apprehended person Lal Mohan Singh has shot at his son, namely, Arun Kumar Singh along with others. The chauidar seized country made pistol from the possession of the apprehended accused and handed over it to the police for institution of a case under the Arms Act. The aforesaid information of Chaukidar gave rise to Marhaura PS case no. 105 of 2007 under section 25(1- b)A and 26 Arms Act. In course of scuffle, apprehended Lal Mohan Singh sustained some injuries and he was taken to Sadar Hospital, Marhaura Surgical ward, where he made statement that it was different person, namely, Kedar Singh who opened fire at Arun Kumar Singh in league with one Bittu Singh. The fard beyan of the apprehended accused Lal Mohan Singh gave rise to Marhaura PS case no. 109 of 2007. It would appear from perusal of all the three FIRs that the same are in respect to different and distinct offence and situations. Marhaura PS case no. 105 of 2007 relates to seizure of arms by a local chaukidar, whereas Marhaura PS case no.108 of 2007 had been lodged by injured Arun Kumar Singh allegedly caused by fire arm opened by Lal Mohan Singh and others, while Marhaura PS case no.109 of 2007 has been lodged by accused Lal Mohan Singh of Marhaura PS case no. 108 of 2007 under sections 341,323,341 I.P.C. in respect of beating he sustained from the crowd who caught him. The main contention of the petitioners is that investigation of offences, recorded in two FIRs, namely, Marhaura PS case nos. 108/07 & 105/07 relates to same occurrence and cannot proceed separately in view of a decision rendered in the case of T.T. Anthony Vs. The State of Kerala, reported - 3 - in AIR 2001 SC 2637. There could be no disagreement in respect to propositions submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, but here in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the main issue would be whether both the cases, namely, Marhuara PS case no. 108 of 2007 lodged for offences under sections 107,148,149,307 I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act dated 21.5.2007 and Marhuara PS case no. 105 of 2007 dated 20.5.2007 lodged for offences under section 25(1-b)A and 26 of the Arms Act relates to in respect of same offence, or the same occurrence or incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. There could not be any dispute that Marhaura PS case nos. 108/07 &. 109 of 2007 are in respect of offence in different transactions and are two distinct occurrence. This is the reason petitioners quite rightly, in my view, have not made prayer for amalgamation of these two cases. Now it is to be seen whether Marhaura PS case no. 108 of 2007, made under section 307 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act, can be quashed or amalgamated with Marhaura PS case no. 105 of 2007, which has been lodged by a local chaukidar in respect of the seizure of arms under section 25(1-b)A and 26 of the Arms Act. It would appear from the fard beyan of chaukidar that father of injured Arun Kumar Singh was also present who narrated the incident to him regarding firing on his son Arun Kumar Singh, but the chaukidar did not get the fard beyan of the father of the injured recorded by the police rather he confined himself to the institution of case under the arms act, pursuant to the seizure of arms from Lal Mohan Singh, informant of Marhaura P.S. case no.109 the F.I.R. 2007.The matter would have different if an FIR would have lodged on statement of father of Arun Kumar - 4 - Singh, injured/informant who had witnessed the occurrence. In such situation the subsequent FIR lodged by his son Arun Kumar Singh being Marhaura PS case no. 108/2007 would not be a legal FIR under section 154 Cr P.C. but a mere statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. But such is not the position in this case. Thus I find that the ratio rendered in the case of T.T. Anthony would not be applicable in the present case. As such, Marhaura P.S. case no. 108 of 2007 instituted on the statement of the victim cannot be quashed, as it is a case instituted by the injured subsequent to which arms has been seized from one of the accused named therein . It is just a chance that Marhaura P.S. case no. 108/07 was instituted later on, as the victim had been taken for Patna for better treatment at PMCH. In this view of the matter, other case, namely, Marhaura PS case no. 105 of 2007 instituted for seizure of arms would not become the main case. As such, relief sought for in this application regarding quashing the FIR of Marhaura PS case no. 108 of 2007 or for its amalgamation with Marhaura P. S.case No. 105 of 2007 is rejected. However, petitioners would be at liberty to represent before the Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra with a plea to amalgamate Marhaura PS case no. 105/07 with 108/07, who will examine the same at the time of submission of Final form. Shashi. (S.P.Singh,J).