SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
In mid-2021, Jharkhand’s coalition government—led by the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) with the Congress and the RJD—was still consolidating power when whispers of political destabilisation surfaced. The allegation was grave: that elected MLAs were being induced to defect with money and promises of office to bring down a democratically elected government.
At the centre of this unease stood Kumar Jaimangal @ Anup Singh, a sitting Congress MLA from Bermo. On July 22 2021, he approached the officer-in-charge of Kotwali Police Station, Ranchi, with information suggesting a conspiracy in motion. He spoke of influential persons and financiers camping in Ranchi hotels, hawala transactions, and attempts to “purchase” MLAs.
What he conveyed was not evidence of a completed crime but apprehension of a political conspiracy—an offence still taking shape.
The First FIR: A Conspiracy Without Names
Based on this complaint, Kotwali P.S. Case No. 159 of 2021 was registered under Sections 419, 420, 124-A, 120-B of the IPC, the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Representation of the People Act.
Notably, the FIR named no accused. It alleged a criminal conspiracy to topple the government, an offence that, in law, is continuing in nature—persisting until executed, frustrated, or abandoned.
The investigation commenced. Arrests were made. Electronic devices were seized. Yet no final report under Sections 169, 170, or 173 CrPC was filed. The FIR remained alive, unresolved, and legally operative.
That unfinished investigation would later become decisive.
The Second Complaint and the Problem of Duplication
Nearly a year later, on July 30-31, 2022, Kumar Jaimangal again approached the police—this time at Argora Police Station, Ranchi.
The apprehension remained unchanged: an attempt to topple the JMM–Congress government. What changed was specificity. In the complaint dated July 31, 2022, he named three sitting Congress MLAs—Rajesh Kacchap, Naman Bixal Kongari, and Irfan Ansari. He alleged offers of ₹10 crore per MLA, promises of ministerial berths, and plans involving Kolkata and Guwahati, allegedly backed by powerful political actors.
On this complaint, the officer-in-charge of Argora PS registered a Zero FIR—despite the existence of the 2021 FIR on the same conspiracy.
This single act would become the fulcrum of the entire case.
The Cash, the Car, and the Optics
Meanwhile, events unfolded dramatically outside Jharkhand.
On the evening of July 30, 2022, West Bengal police intercepted a black Fortuner on NH-16 near Panchla in Howrah district. Inside were the very MLAs named in the complaint. A bag containing ₹49.98 lakh in cash was recovered. The occupants were detained and later arrested.
Images circulated instantly. Public perception hardened. Guilt appeared self-evident.
The Zero FIR from Argora PS was transmitted electronically to Panchla Police Station, leading to registration of Panchla P.S. Case No. 276 of 2022. The investigation was taken over by the CID, West Bengal. Bail followed.
But optics, the High Court would later remind, are not law.
The Legal Question That Changed Everything
When the MLAs approached the Jharkhand High Court, they did not contest the political narrative. They raised a precise legal issue:
Can a second FIR be registered for the same alleged conspiracy when the first FIR is still under investigation?
Justice Shree Chandrashekhar framed the controversy narrowly, resisting the pull of political drama. The Court compared the 2021 FIR and the 2022 complaints—not by names or amounts, but by the nature of the offence alleged.
The conclusion was stark: both complaints alleged the same conspiracy.
One Conspiracy, One Investigation
Relying on a long line of Supreme Court precedent—T.T. Antony, Babubhai, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah, C. Muniappan, Krishna Lal Chawla—the Court reiterated settled law:
- Criminal conspiracy is a continuing offence
- New participants or new acts do not create a new conspiracy
- Subsequent information must be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC
- A second FIR for the same transaction is impermissible and violative of Article 21
The Court emphasised that an FIR is not an encyclopedia. It need not name every accused at inception. To permit successive FIRs merely because new names surface would subject citizens to endless investigation—an abuse the Constitution does not tolerate.
Jurisdiction, Zero FIRs, and the Limits of Police Power
The Court then examined whether the Zero FIR itself was lawful.
The Panchla FIR explicitly recorded the place of occurrence as Dhori, Bokaro, Jharkhand. The alleged conspiracy was hatched and executed, if at all, within Jharkhand. Mere seizure of cash in West Bengal could not confer territorial jurisdiction.
Justice Chandrashekhar undertook a detailed analysis of Sections 177–179 CrPC, holding that criminal jurisdiction is substantive, not procedural. Section 156(2) CrPC, often invoked as a saving clause, could not legitimise an investigation where no jurisdiction existed in the first place.
The Ministry of Home Affairs’ Zero FIR guidelines, the Court clarified, are victim-centric. They cannot be used to bypass statutory limits or revive an otherwise illegal second FIR.
“Malice in Law”: When Authority Exceeds Legality
Rejecting the argument that no mala fides were pleaded, the Court invoked the doctrine of malice in law—acts done without lawful authority, irrespective of intent.
Drawing from Khudiram Das, Goverdhanlal Pitti, and Viscount Haldane’s formulation, the Court held:
An act done in ignorance of the law is still an act done contrary to law.
The officer-in-charge of Argora PS had a statutory duty to treat the 2022 complaints as part of the ongoing investigation in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 159 of 2021. Registering a Zero FIR instead was not discretion—it was dereliction.
Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus
Applying the maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus—remove the foundation and the structure collapses—the Court held:
- The Zero FIR at Argora PS was illegal
- Its transmission to Panchla PS was illegal
- Panchla P.S. Case No. 276 of 2022 had no legal existence
Every arrest, seizure, and proceeding flowing from it was rendered non est.
On March 3, 2023, W.P. (Cr.) No. 483 of 2022 was allowed in full.
Democracy Beyond the Courtroom
Legally, the matter ended there.
Politically, it did not.
In the 2024 Assembly elections, the same MLAs returned to the electorate. They were re-elected. The JMM-led coalition returned to power. And Irfan Ansari—once arrested in a case alleging the overthrow of that very government—was sworn in as a minister.
The files closed. The precedent endured. Democracy delivered its own verdict.
Legacy at 25
As the Jharkhand High Court marks 25 years, this judgment stands as a defining assertion of constitutional discipline. It reminds that procedure is not a technicality, police power is not boundless, and liberty cannot be sacrificed at the altar of optics.
Between suspicion and proof, between power and law, the Court chose restraint.
And in doing so, it reaffirmed the architecture of criminal justice for a young state still defining its constitutional voice.
