Prabhat Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

R.K. Rastogi, J.—All these three applications have been moved u/s 482, Cr. P.C., to quash charge-sheets filed in Case Crime No. 11 of 2007, 10 of 2007 and 9 of 2007 respectively of P. S. Pipi Gang, Distt. Gorakhpur. Since the facts of all these cases are common and the point involved is legal one, I have with the consent of parties, heard Mr. Raghuvir Singh and Mr. S. R. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A., for the State and now I am deciding them by a common order.

The facts relevant for disposal of these applications are that on 7.4.2007 at 4.30 p.m. an F.I.R. was lodged by Shesh Mani applicant No. 1 in Crl. Misc. Applications No. 14923 of 2008 and 14964 of 2008 with these allegations that he is on inimical terms with Rajendra Kurmi and his family members and on 7.4.2007 at about 3.40 p.m. Shesh Mani alongwith his son Avinash Yadav was going to his house. At that time Rajendra Kurmi, his brother Yogendra Kurmi and one Shiv Kumar Kurmi, who were riding on a motorcycle reached near them and Shiv Kumar Kurmi asked his companions to murder them. Then Rajendra Kurmi fired from his country-made pistol. Consequently, Avinash received the fire arm injury and he fell down. Shesh Mani tried to run away but Rajendra, Yogendra and Shiv Kumar fired upon him also. This incident was witnessed by Radhey Shyam Chaurasiya, Yogendra etc. Avinash Yadav died on the spot. Thereafter, Shesh Mani reached the police station and lodged the F.I.R.

It is alleged that on account of murder of Avinash Yadav, the applicants of the present three applications, who belong to the party of Shesh Mani Yadav on 7.4.2007 at about 10.20 p.m. attacked at the houses of Virendra Chaudhari, Ram Kumar Chaudhari and Smt. Saroj Chaudhari, O.P. No. 2 in all the three applications respectively and looted their property as well as property of their school Saraswati Gyan Mandir and also committed mischief by fire. Thereafter, on 1.5.2007 Virendra Chaudhari moved an application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C., against 36 accused persons levelling allegations of offences under Sections 395, 397, 436, 504 and 506, I.P.C. against them. Ram Kumar Chaudhari also moved an application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C., on 1.5.2007 against 34 accused persons in respect of above incident, and Smt. Saroj Chaudhari also moved an application on 1.5.2007 against 15 persons named in the application for the same incident under Sections 395, 397, 436, 504 and 506, I.P.C. The Magistrate, on these applications, issued directions to the S.O. of the concerned police station to register the cases and investigate the same. Hence, on the application of Virendra Chaudhari Case Crime No. 11 of 2007 was registered against the accused persons, on the application of Ram Kumar Chaudhari Case Crime No. 10 of 2007 was registered against the accused persons and on the application of Smt. Saroj Chaudhari Case Crime No. 9 of 2007 was registered against the accused persons. Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that all these three applications were moved in respect of the same incident, which had allegedly taken place on 7.4.2007 at 10.20 p.m. and three F.I.Rs. were registered in respect of the same incident which is unwarranted by law.

This fact is not disputed that all the three F.I.Rs. are of the same incident, which had allegedly taken place at the houses of the three informants in one continuation at the same time. The Police after investigation has submitted charge-sheets against 34 accused persons in Case Crime No. 10 of 2007, against 33 accused persons in Case Crime No. 11 of 2007, and in Case Crime No. 9 of 2007 against 15 accused persons.

Contention of learned Counsel for the accused applicants is that when all the F.I.Rs. are in respect of the same incident there was no justification for registration of these F.I.Rs. separately on the applications of these three informants and for submission of three charge-sheets. It was further contended that there cannot be two F.I.Rs. in respect of the same incident, and that the accused cannot be tried and punished twice for the same offence.

This fact is not disputed by the prosecution also that all these F.I.Rs. are in respect of the same incident which had happened in one continuation and the three informants have not only described as to what had happened with them but they have given a cursory description of what had happened with other informants also.

It is, however, to be seen that the all the accused are not common in all the charge sheets. Out of fifteen accused charge sheeted in Case Crime No. 9/07 only Suresh Mani has been charge sheeted in Case Crime No. 10/07 also but not in Case Crime No. 11/07. The remaining 14 accused of this case have not been charge sheeted in either of the other two cases. Out of 33 accused charge sheeted in Case Crime No. 11/07, all accused except Agni son of Bhagwan Das have been charge sheeted in Case Crime No. 10/07, but not in Case Crime No. 9/07. Agni has been charge sheeted only in Case Crime No. 11/07 and in no other case. All accused of Case Crime No. 10/07 (except Shesmani and Jai Prakash) have been charge sheeted in Case Crime No. 11/07 also, Jai Prakash has been charge sheeted in Case Crime No. 10/07 only and in no other case.

As per prosecution case, the entire incident in respect of which these three F.I.Rs. have been lodged had taken place on 7.4.2007 at about 10.20 p.m. in one continuation in which some participants were common and some were different. That is why some persons have been charge sheeted in one case only while some participants have been charge sheeted in more than one case.

However, when some participants are not common, there is no justification for quashing of the charge sheets in these cases. It appears that Case Crime No. 1/08 has been registered in the Court of A.C.J.M. XVII, Gorakhpur on the basis of charge-sheet in Case Crime No. 11/07, Crl. Case No. 2/08 has been registered on the basis of C.S. in C.C. No. 10/07 and Crl. Case No. 3/08 has been registered on the basis of C.S. in C.C. No. 9/07. Since all these charge-sheets are in respect of one incident only which happened at the same time at nearby places in one continuation in which some of the participants are also common, I hereby order that all these three cases shall be consolidated and tried together.

Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that those accused which had been charge sheeted in more than one cases shall have to bear additional burden of bringing different sureties in those cases. Taking this fact into consideration, I order that the accused shall apply for bail in all the cases in which they have been charge sheeted, but in case their bail applications are allowed, they shall be required to file one set of bail bonds which shall cover all the cases in which they are accused. In case the accused persons appear before the Magistrate within 40 days from this date and apply for bail, the same shall be considered by the Courts concerned expeditiously and during this period of one month no coercive process shall be issued and executed against them to enable them to appear before the Court. All the applications u/s 482, Cr. P.C., are disposed of accordingly.