IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33569 of 2008 SHAMBHU KUMAR @ SHAMBHU KUMAR CHAURASAI, son of Nanddeo Prasad, village Sopalpur, PS Gogri, district Khagaria – petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Mostt. Munni Devi, daughter of Paswan Mangal, residing in the building of Kapildeo Mahto, Near Nagdah Bhagwatiasthan, PS Mufassil, district Begusarai – opp. parties. 2 23.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 21.2.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in Gogri (Maheshkhut) PS Case No. 65/2006 whereby the court below has sent the complaint petition filed by one Munni Devi to be registered as F.I.R. under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner submits that with respect to the same occurrence an FIR was instituted by one Sanjay Prasad Ranjan, son of the deceased as Gogri PS Case No. 33/2005 on 23.2.2005. The case was registered against unknown. Three days later Munni Devi claiming to be the wife of Nanddeo Prasad filed a complaint petition in which she has alleged that the informant Sanjay Prasad Ranjan, Shambhu Prasad, sons of the deceased and one Janakdhari Prasad were responsible for the occurrence in which Nanddeo Prasad was killed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the said Munni Devi had executed a sale deed with respect to the land belonging to Nanddeo Prasad measuring 2 kathas and 10 dhurs. A money suit has been filed in which injunction has been granted restraining Munni Devi from disposing of the property belonging to 2 Nanddeo Prasad. On the aforesaid facts it has been argued that this case is squarely covered by the case of T.T, Antony vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181. Relying on paragraphs 18 and 19 of the said judgment, learned counsel submits that once an F.I.R. has been instituted with respect to the same offence, the court cannot direct for institution of the second F.I.R. regarding the same occurrence. The facts of the case of T.T. Antony do not apply to the facts of the present case. It is apparent that the informant and the accused persons are different and both have given different version of the occurrence. It is made obvious that while investigating the case, the Officer Incharge will take into account the investigation made in Gogri PS Case No. 33/2005 and if the investigator reaches to the conclusion that the petitioner is involved in the crime, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a petition for conducting the trial of the two case together. This application is, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)