IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44694 of 2008 1. Sudhir Kumar, son of Ishwar Chandra,ohalla Khandakpar, Ganesh Gali, PS Bihar, Dist. Nalanda. 2. Vijay Kumar, son of Devdas Arya @ Gandhijee, Mohalla Mahalpar, Bihar Sharif, PS Bihar, Dist. Nalanda. 3. Pramod Kumar @ Chandragupta Maurya, son of Kameshwar Prasad Sao, resident of Asthawa Bazar, PS Asthawa Bazar, Dist. Nalanda. 4. Santosh Kumar, son of Late Vijay Prasad of Murarpur Signal Gali, Bihar Sharif, PS Laheri, district Nalanda – petitioenrs. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Anju Devi, wife of Late Sanjay Prasad, Mohalla Murarpur Signal Gali, Bihar Sharif, PS Laheri, district Nalanda – opp. parties. 5 4.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the criminal proceeding arising out of Laheri PS Case No. 207/2007 instituted on 4.12.2007 on the ground that there is already an FIR with respect to the same offence instituted by the Officer Incharge of Laheri police station numbered as Laheri PS Case No. 158/2007. Anju Devi, opposite party no. 2 filed a Sanha in which she gave information to the police that her husband Sanjay Prasad had gone for work on 29.7.2007 but had not returned home thereafter. On the basis of the Sanha the police made investigation and instituted Laheri PS Case No. 158/2007 in which it has been stated that the husband of opposite party no.2 is missing and that the police could not trace the persons involved in the kidnapping of Sanjay Prasad. In the mean time it appears that the dead body was recovered and the police could not connect the recovered dead body to the missing Sanjay Prasad. After about two months, a second FIR was instituted on 4.12.2007 in which Anju Devi has stated that she got telephone call 2 demanding a ransom of Rs. 1 lakh. The said money was paid to the kidnappers and there was an assurance that Sanjay Prasad would be returned home. The next day Sanjay Prasad did not return home and as such opposite party no.2 went to the police station and instituted a case against the accused persons under sections 406, 419, 420/34 of the Penal Code alleging that they had deliberately made demand of ransom knowing very well that the husband of opposite party no.2 had already been murdered. Eventually the police showed a picture of a body which had been recovered earlier and opposite party no.2 was able to identify the picture of the dead body as that of her husband. Subsequently sections 302 and 120B of the Penal Code was added in Laheri PS Case No. 158/2007. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners is based on the case of T.T. Antony vs. The State of Kerala (AIR 2001 SC 2637). The argument advanced is that since the occurrence arises out of the same incident which is said to have taken place on the same day, two FIRs are unwarranted and if any fresh facts had come into existence, the Investigating Officer ought to have tagged it along with the first F.I.R. In the present case this court does not see any justification for holding that the incident is the same, in view of the facts stated hereinafter. The husband of Anju Devi disappeared / kidnapped on 29.7.2007 and was murdered on the same day. The body was recovered on 30.7.2007 which remained unidentified. The Ist case was instituted on 29.7.2007 itself alleging kidnapping of Sanjay 3 Prasad against unknown. The second case is, however, for a distinct offence which has been instituted on 4.12.2007 alleging that ransom was paid by the opposite party. In order to pay the ransom, the mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 sold a piece of land to arrange money and it has been alleged that the petitioners knowing very well that the husband of opposite party no.2 had been killed, had cheated her by making her pay the ransom on the promise of releasing her husband. This court finds that the facts in T.T. Antony’s case are quite different, from the facts of the present case and the institution of the two F.I.Rs. are quite justified. Having held that the institution of two FIRs are justified, this court also finds that it would be in the interest of justice if both the cases are tried together by the same court in order to achieve complete justice between the parties. This application is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)