IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45637 of 2007 SANJAY KHAKHA son of Sri Abnezer Khakha, resident of village- Dibadih (Baithama), P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi at Jharkhand Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sanjay Kujur, S/o Sri Rudolf Kujur, resident of Tripolia Hospital, Gulzarbagh, Patna- 7 ----------- 3. 4.3.2010. Heard Mr. Prashant Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Harish Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.6.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Darbhanga in T.R. No.3043 of 2007 arising out of Ashok Paper Mills P.S. Case No.112 of 2005 for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. While pressing the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the father of the deceased had lodged information regarding accidental death of his son and after lapse of about 40 days, the brother of the deceased has filed the present first information report in which he has made the petitioner as an accused for the murder of his brother and first information report was lodged as Ashok Paper Mills P.S. Case No.112 of 2005 on 6.12.2005 for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony Vrs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2001(6) SCC 181. He submits that the Supreme Court has already laid down the law that 2 for the same offence there cannot be two first information reports and on this ground he prays that if the order of cognizance is not set aside, it will amount to allowing abuse of process of the court. Learned counsel for the informant as well as State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that this is not a case where only first information report has been registered but in this case after investigation police submitted charge sheet against this petitioner and thereafter the learned court below has taken cognizance of the offence. He submits that it is not a case at present relating to investigation of an offence, but court has already taken cognizance of the offence after completion of investigation and, as such, the petitioner may not get any relief on the basis of T.T. Antony’s case (Supra). I have also examined the record. Prima facie, in the present case, the principle laid down in T.T. Antony’s case is directly not applicable because in this case, after investigation, charge sheet has already been submitted and moreover the judgment in T.T. Antony’s case was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. The view taken in T.T. Antony’s case was examined subsequently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case reported in 2009 Cri.L.J. 958 (Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab) and second first information report in one occurrence has not been considered as a bar. Moreover, at this stage, i.e. while exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court is not required to examine all those things. Time without number the Supreme Court has reiterated that power 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised in exceptional and rarest of the rare cases. In the present case, after investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the court has already taken cognizance of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and, as such, I am of the view that this case cannot be considered to an exceptional case warranting this Court to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which, obviously, is to be exercised in rarest of the rare cases. Moreover, if there is already alternative remedy available to a party to raise the issue at the proper stage, the petitioner cannot be allowed to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)