IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45847 of 2008 Sanjay Kumar, son of Umashankar Gupta, resident of Station Road, Jhanjharpur, PS Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani – Petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The State of Bihar through Vigilance Department – Opposite parties. … For the petitioner : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate and Mrs. M. Chatterjee, Advocate. For the Vigilance Department : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Incharge Special P.P. and Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, J.C. … 4 4-9-2009 The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the entire proceeding as well as the F.I.R. of Vigilance Case No. 30/2008, dated 29.5.2008 for the offences alleged to have been committed under sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 418, 477A, 406, 167/120 of the Penal Code and sections 8 and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the ground that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Nalanda, Bihar Sharif has already instituted an F.I.R. being Rahui PS Case No. 127/2008 on 18.5.2008 under sections 167, 420 and 421 of the Penal Code. The offences relates to the defalcation of money to be paid to the beneficiaries under the Mukhya Mantri Awas Yojna and Indra Awas Yojna. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner along with the Branch Manager has recorded the names of 239 beneficiaries under the two schemes Panchayat-wise and in fact there were several irregularities and anomalies found in the allotments which have been mentioned in detail in Vigilance PS Case No. 30/2008. Another F.I.R. instituted was by the Deputy Collector 2 Land Reforms with regard to the irregularities which were committed in Bhawanpura Panchayat with respect to the Mukhya Mantri Awas Yojna within Rahui block. In this case 38 persons were said to be the beneficiaries and were allotted lands and benefits which have come under investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences are of similar nature and since there was already a case i.e. Rahui PS Case No.127/2008 pending against the petitioner, there was no occasion to institute a separate case by the Vigilance Department on the ground that as during the investigation of the case fresh facts had come to the knowledge of the Investigating Officer, they should be included in the case filed earlier. In this case there are few glaring facts. The earlier F.I.R. relates to similar conspiracy whereas the second F.I.R. is with respect to the irregularities and concerns the case of large scale cheating and defalcation in granting the benefits of the schemes floated by the State and the Central Governments. The first case relates to only the scheme floated under the Mukhya Mantri Awas Yojna whereas the second case by the Vigilance Department is with respect to Indra Awas Yojna and Mukhya Mantri Awas Yojna covering a larger ground. Therefore, it cannot be said that the facts are identical. The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that his case is covered by the decision rendered in the case of T. T. Antony vs. State of Kerala (2001) 6 S.C.C. 181 and as such this court ought to quash the case instituted by the Vigilance Department. The 3 Supreme court has distinguished the case of T.T. Antony in the judgment delivered in the case of Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab, 2009 Cr. L. J. 958. In a case of this nature where investigation is still pending in both the cases regarding the offences of cheating, it cannot be said that the second F.I.R. would be barred specially as the scope of canvass of investigation is much larger and involves more than one scheme. The case cannot be said that it is barred by section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The area or the local limits of the offences are also distinct and different inasmuch as the F.I.R. lodged earlier is only with respect to one Panchayat whereas the case instituted by the Vigilance Department covers the entire block and, therefore, the investigation of the case involves much larger area. Apart from what has been stated aforesaid, the investigation in the vigilance case is still continuing and as such at this stage this court cannot examine the facts of the case and quash the First Information Report at the most the petitioner may pray for amalgamation of the trial so that both cases can be heard together. For the reasons aforesaid I find no merit in this application. This application is accordingly dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)