IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55268 of 2007 1. BINOD CHAUHAN, SON OF SHRI HARI CHARAN CHAUHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHIV SAGAR. 2. LAL GOVIND SINGH, SON OF LATE BHAGWAT DAYAL SINGH. 3. HARI GOVIND SINGH, SON OF LATE BHAGWAT DAYAL SINGH, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAJHIYAMA. 4. MITHILESH YADAV, SON OF SHRI RAM NANDAN YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SURAH. ALL P.S. NAVI NAGAR, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. BUDHMANI DEVI, WIFE OF SATYADEV CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHIVSAGAR, P.S. NABINAGAR, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :- Mr. R.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Ramchandra Singh, A.P.P. ******* 6 31.3.2011 This application has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report relating to Navi Nagar P.S. Case No. 61 of 2005 dated 19.7.2005 registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that with respect to the same occurrence two other cases were registered numbered as Navi Nagar P.S. Case No. 52 of 2005 and Navi Nagar P.S. Case No. 53 of 2005. The facts are that on 28.6.2005 Md. Kamal Akhtar around mid-night heard the sound of firing which was coming from the direction of village Shiv Sagar. When he 2 went to the place of occurrence which was near the field of Har Govind Singh, the villagers namely Sarvesh Kumar Singh handed over two injured persons along with arms seized by the villagers to the informant. It has been alleged that Ram Narayan Chauhan and Raj Kumar Chauhan had come to commit dacoity in the village. It was also disclosed by the villagers specifically by one Sarvesh Kumar Singh that on hearing the sound of firing the villagers of Shiv Sagar gathered at the place of occurrence. Seizure list was prepared and the case was registered. On 28.6.2005 one Md. Hashim Khan also a Dafadar gave his Beyan at the Primary Health Centre which was registered as Navi Nagar P.S. Case No. 53 of 2005. The two injured persons were brought to the Primary Health Centre and one of them i.e. Raj Kumar Chauhan was declared dead. The third case, which was initially a complaint case was instituted by the sister of Raj Kumar Chauhan (deceased) namely Budhmani Devi. She has alleged that Vinod Chauhan came to her house and told her 3 brother that Lal Govind Singh and Har Govind Singh had sent for him. When it got late and her brother did not return, she along with other family members went to look for him and saw that her brother was being assaulted mercilessly by the petitioners and his dead body was left in front of the house of Lal Govind Singh. All three cases were investigated together. The case diary reveals that the Deputy Superintendent of Police after supervising the three cases found that Navi Nagar P.S. Case Nos. 52 of 2005 and 53 of 2005 appear to be false. The reasons why they were found false have been stated in 15 paragraphs of the case diary. For example, the Deputy Superintendent of Police came to the conclusion that the seizure list witnesses and other witnesses examined in this case were from the village Majhiyama which is 2 kms. from the place of occurrence, whereas the nearest village to the place of occurrence was Bhuia Toli, however not a single witness came to support the manner of occurrence from the Bhuia Toli. The Deputy Superintendent of Police 4 disbelieved the occurrence on the ground that the place of occurrence had been changed, as all the witnesses have supported the fact that the injured persons were recovered in front of the house of Lal Govind Singh. The informants of Navi Nagar P.S. Case No. 52 of 2005 and Navi Nagar P.S. Case No. 53 of 2005 are not eye witness to any part of the occurrence, and the actual eye witnesses or aggrieved persons, although allegedly present, did not lodge the First Information Report. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the principles laid down in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 would be applicable to the facts of this case, as for the same occurrence, there are three First Information Reports. In the facts of the present as enumerated above, I do not find that the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors would be applicable in this case. All three cases were investigated together and the investigating agency has come to the conclusion that the complaint case which was later converted into Navi 5 Nagar P.S. Case No. 61 of 2005 is the correct version of the occurrence. In any event, at this stage, I find that there is no justification for quashing the First Information Report. As a result, this application is dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)