IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.177 of 2007 (For quashing of First Information Report of Bairmo P.S. Case No.154/2005 dated 16.12.2005 registered under Sections 420, 120(B), 302, 379 & 34) ======================================================= Harish Kumar @ Harish Prasad, son of Indradeo Ram @ Chandradeo Ram, resident of village- Baldebel, P.S.-Haldi, District-Balia. ..... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Superintendent of Jail, Siwan. 3. The Officer Incharge of the Siwan Police Station under Siwan, District. 4. Superintendent of Police, Siwan (Bihar). 5. Superintendent of Police, Bokaro (Jharkhand) 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Bairmo, District-Bokaro (Jharkhand). 7. The State of Jharkhand. .... .... Respondents. with Criminal Writ No. 247 of 2007 ======================================================= Raj Kumar @ Raja, son of Late Dhurandhar Prasad, resident of village-Sarai, P.O.-Balia, District-Balia. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Superintendent of Jail, Siwan. 3. The Officer Incharge of Siwan Police Station under Siwan, District. 4. Superintendent of Police, Siwan (Bihar). 5. Superintendent of Police, Bokaro (Jharkhand) 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Bairmo, District-Bokaro (Jharkhand). 7. The State of Jharkhand. .... .... Respondents. with Criminal Writ No. 369 of 2007 ======================================================= Brajesh Kumar Singh @ Brajesh Singh, son of Shri Kharag Bahadur Singh, resident of village-Datauli, P.S.-Sahatwar, District-Balia. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Superintendent of Jail, Siwan. 3. The Officer Incharge of the Siwan Police Station under Siwan, District. 4. Superintendent of Police, Siwan (Bihar). 5. Superintendent of Police, Bokaro (Jharkhand) 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Bairmo, District-Bokaro (Jharkhand). 7. The state of Jharkhand. .... .... Respondents. ======================================================= P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned 2 Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. All these petitions have analogous hearing as these originate from, common grove. 3. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of Bairmo P.S. Case no.154/05 registered under Section 420, 120B, 302, 389/34 of the I.P.C. 4. Briefly stated the facts as emerges out from consolidated version of Siswan P.S. Case No.85/2005 and Bairmo P.S. Case no.154/05 happens to be Man Mohan Tiwary had taken away Belero Jeep bearing Registration No. JH 10 6832 from Jugal Kishore Pandey on 03.12.2005 along with Bablu Singh on the pretext of participating in marriage ceremony of his sister and will returned back within ten days. Mankeshwar Pandey, son of Jugal Kishore Pandey was driver. Another vehicle bearing Registration No. JH 05 3526 of Murli Singh from Bairmo was also taken away by them. Jugal Kishore Pandey had talked with Mankeshwar Pandey up till 04.12.2005. Subsequently thereof, he came to know that one Belero jeep was seized by Jafliganj P.S. without having number plate along with two criminals having in possession of firearms. While Jugal Kishore Pandey was in the way, he received information that two dead body has been found within the jurisdiction of Siswan P.S. Jugal Kishore Pandey had gone to Siswan P.S. and identified photographs one belonging to his son Mankeshwar Pandey and another Ajay Sukla as well as they have also identified cloth and other articles kept at P.S. He had also came to know 3 that his son was murdered by sharp cutting weapon while Ajay Sukla was shot dead. 5. On the fardbeyan of the Dafadar Jha, Siswan P.S. Case No.85/2005 was registered against unknown under Section 302, 201/34 of the I.P.C. as well as 27 of the Arms Act on 05.12.2005 while after returning from Siswan, Jugal Kishore Pandey filed written report on the basis of which Bairmo P.S. Case no.154/05 was registered under Section 420, 120B, 302, 389/34 of the I.P.C. against Man Mohan Tiwari and others on 16.12.2005. 6. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that jerms of both the cases are same and similar and further Siswan P.S. Case No.85/2005 was registered earlier to Bairmo P.S. Case No.154/2005. Therefore, if both the proceedings are allowed to continue, then in that event, it will be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. Also submitted that continuity of both the proceedings will jeopardize interest of the petitioners. Also submitted that parallel prosecution happens to be contrary to Law for which referred Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. read with Article 20(2) of the Constitution. Also submitted that as per Section 186 of the Cr.P.C., this Court is competent to entertain and pass order quashing the FIR of Bairmo P.S. Case no.154/05 in light of Section 186(b) of the Cr.P.C. as admittedly Bairmo P.S. Case no.154/05 was registered after institution of Siswan P.S. Case No.85/2005. 4 7. At the other hand the learned Government Advocate submitted that the prayer of the petitioner is not at all maintainable in the light of the fact that petitioners have not come when clean hand. From Annexure-2 it is evident that the looted Belero jeep was recovered within the jurisdiction of Allahabad High Court along with the accused persons having in possession of illegal firearms including the petitioner but the petitioner knowingly and intentionally withheld the said FIR which could have disclosed which of the three cases was registered at an earliest. 8. From the facts of the case it is evident that the vehicle was taken from Bairmo (presently under Jharkhand State) under deceitful manner and during course of journey, driver of both the jeeps were murdered and their dead body was found within Siswan P.S., Siwan district of the Bihar State. The aforesaid vehicle were seized at Balia. That means to say the first stage of offence was committed at the Bairmo where under vehicle was taken away by deceitful means and subsequent events happens to be outcome of the first offence which was committed at Bairmo that means to say the subsequent event happens to be an off suit. Ordinarily the place of inquiry / trial of a particular offence happens to be by the court within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed as per Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. with certain exceptions that are subsequently found incorporated under Section 178 and on wards. Section 178 describes after categorization of commission of offence in following manner:- 5 “S. 178. Place of inquiry or trial. – (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.” 9. So from sub-clause (b) read with (d), it is evident that there happens to be concurrent jurisdiction of the courts where under any part of the offence has been committed. Now coming to the other relevant Section that happens to be Section 179 which speaks like. “S. 179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues. – When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.”. 10. The other Section on this score happens to be Section 180 which reads as follows:- “S. 180. Place of trial where act is offence by reason of relation to other offence. – When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which would be an offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence, the first mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done.”. 11. Another Section which could be quoted on this score is 6 Section 181 which is like this:- “S. 181. Place of trial in case of certain offences. –(1) Any offence of being a thug, or murder committed by a thug, of dacoity, of dacoity with murder, of belonging to a gang of dacoits, or of escaping from custody, may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the accused persons is found.” (2) Any offence of kidnapping or abduction of a person may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the person was kidnapped or abducted or was conveyed or concealed or detained. (3) Any offence of theft, extortion or robbery may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property which is the subject of the offence was possessed by any person committing it or by any person who received or retained such property knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property. (4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused persons. (5) Any offence which includes the possession of stolen property may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property was possessed by any person who received or retained it knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property. 12. Thus after having conjoint reading of all the Sections referred above, it is evident that the courts have been given concurrent 7 jurisdiction and that happens to be reason behind presence of Section 186 of the Cr.P.C. where under High Court has been given power to decide the jurisdiction which of those courts should be allowed to proceed with the inquiry or trial. For better appreciation Section 186 is quoted below: “S. 186 High Court to decide, in case of doubt, district where inquiry or trial shall take place. – Where two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try that offence, the question shall be decided- (a) if the Courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court; (b) if the Courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced, and thereupon all other proceedings in respect of that offence shall be discontinued .”. 13. Section 186 empowers the High Court to settle at rest anomaly over jurisdiction avenue. If all the cases have been instituted within the original jurisdiction of same High Court, the same would be decided by the same High Court as per sub-clause (a) of 186. In case, the cases happens to be instituted within the jurisdiction of different High Courts, then a privilege has been given to that High Court within whose jurisdiction, the proceeding first commenced. From the document annexed by the petitioner as well as from the averments made through counter affidavit, there is no controversy that Siswan P.S. Case No.85 of 2005 was 8 registered on 05.12.2005 and Bairmo P.S. Case No.154 of 2005 was registered on 16.12.2005 that means to say Siswan P.S. Case was registered before institution of Bairmo P.S. Case. However, none of the parties been able to place the relevant documents more particularly the FIR with regard to seizure of the looted Belero jeep which was seized within the jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh State (Allahabad High Court). For want of aforesaid document, this Court happens to be in dark whether the case of Ballia was registered first or at Siswan P.S. 14. Section 186 sub-clause (b) empowers only to that High Court to exercise its power where under the proceeding first commenced. As the institution of case at Balia (Kotwali) P.S. is not known nor it has been denied, therefore it was incumbent upon the petitioners to file C.C. of FIR though Annexure-2, an order passed by the Hon’ble Court Allahabad has been filed. Had the petitioner been honest in their conduct, the FIR of Balia (Kotwali) P.S. must have been filed. Non filing of the aforesaid document forbidden this Court be exercised its power under Section 186 sub-clause (b) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order of stay is vacated. Patna High Court Dated 16th of September, 2011 Prakash Narayan / N.A.F.R. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)