IRFAN HUSSAIN Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the petitioner seeks quashing of the F.I.R, i.e., Jagarnathpur (Pundag) P.S. Case No.328 of 2013 (corresponding to G.R. No.6673 of 2013) registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C) and Sections 25(1)-(b) and 26 of the Arms Act.

(2.) Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid case has been instituted in course of investigation of the Sikidiri P.S. Case No.35 of 2012 dated 09.10.2012, registered for the offence under Sections 364 I.P.C and 27 of the Arms Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the aforesaid case a pistol used by the petitioner was seized and the petitioner had produced the licence of the pistol. That on verification of the licence it was found to be a forged and fake license, accordingly Sikidiri P.S. Case No.35 of 2012 was registered. Learned counsel, while relying on the decision in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. CBI & Anr, 2013 6 SCC 348 has contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that administering criminal justice is a two-end process, where guarding the ensured rights of the accused under the Constitution is as imperative as ensuring justice to the victim and balance has to be struck to protect the fundamental rights of the accused enshrined in the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to enquire a cognizable offence.

(3.) Per contra, learned A.P.P has contended that lodging of the second F.I.R is in consonance with the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C, as it would be evident that the license produced by the present petitioner and another co-accused with respect to the seized pistols were found to be fake and forged. That in fact two distinct offences were committed hence both the F.I.Rs are maintainable though he has not controverted the fact that both the F.I.Rs arose on account of the same occurrence. Learned A.P.P has contended that the charge-sheets have been submitted under distinct offences and this can cause no prejudice to the petitioner as he has the liberty to lead the evidence in his defence during the trials.