IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13759 of 2008 ======================================================= Manas Kumar Chatterjee, Son of Late Sudhir Kumar Chatterjee, Permanent resident of Mohalla-Bhatta Bazar, Purnea, P.S.- Khazanchi Hat, Purnea, District and Town-Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Dr. Sachidanand Singh, Son of late Gopal Singh, Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Harnaut, P.S.-Harnaut, in the District of Nalanda. .... .... Opposite Party/s ======================================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Upahdyay, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. U. S. Prasad Singh, Adv. ======================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Though in the petition one Dr. Sachidanand Singh is added as opposite party no. 2, being the informant, but in view of the fact that the complaint was made in official capacity leading to the lodging of the F.I.R. and since the learned A.P.P. is present, this Court does not find the necessity to issue notice to him. 3. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) for quashing of the first information report of Harnaut P.S. Case No. 06 of 2008 dated Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13759 of 2008 dt.15-12-2011 2 9.1.2008 registered under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477 (B)/120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and other co-accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. impugned is unsustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that for the very same alleged offence, based on identical facts, earlier also Harnaut P.S. Case No. 171 of 1994 was lodged in which after investigation chargesheet was submitted against one person and trial is still pending. He submits that the law in this regard is very clear in as much as once an F.I.R. has been lodged, the police or investigating agency even after submission of the initial chargesheet is at liberty to carry on further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Code based on further evidence, both oral and documentary, and then the same can be forwarded to the Magistrate for necessary action. It is submitted that the second F.I.R. for the same offence, based on the same facts, is impermissible in law and is abuse of the process of the Court and thus this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code is competent to quash the F.I.R. to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and for securing the ends of justice. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T. T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in (2001) 6 S.C.C. 181. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13759 of 2008 dt.15-12-2011 3 opposes the application and submits that the police are empowered to carry on the investigation since the F.I.R. lodged is proper and the same has been done on the basis of enquiry conducted under the orders of the High Court while dealing with a Public Interest Litigation. He submits that in any view of the matter, the interest of the petitioner shall not be prejudiced whether investigation is carried out pursuant to the second F.I.R. or the first F.I.R. of the year 1994 itself. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply submits that the order passed in the Public Interest Litigation was for conducting an enquiry with regard to the irregularities but it did not mean that pursuant to that a procedure would be adopted which is impermissible in law. He submits that there is provision in law if such a situation arises, but the same not being applied or followed, cannot condone an illegality committed by the State in instituting a fresh F.I.R. He also draws the attention of this Court to Letter No. 1411, written by the opposite party by No. 2, dated 22.11.2007, to the Officer In-charge of Harnaut Police Station, in which it is requested that either F.I.R. may be lodged or a modified chargesheet submitted with regard to the earlier Harnaut P.S. Case No. 171 of 1994. It is submitted that erroneously the police has registered a second F.I.R. being Harnaut P.S. Case No. 6 of 2008, though, at best, they could have proceeded with further investigation in Harnaut P.S. Case No. 171 of 1994, and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13759 of 2008 dt.15-12-2011 4 if required, could have submitted a supplementary report before the Magistrate for any further action/order. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. In view of the provisions of law, especially Section 173 (8) of the Code, second F.I.R. is not maintainable moreso since the second F.I.R. and fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same case, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, is not permissible. 9. Thus, the ratio of the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of T. T. Antony (Supra) is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case in as much as the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that second F.I.R. arising out of the same facts and for the same offences is not maintainable. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the application is allowed and the first information report of Harnaut P.S. Case No. 6 of 2008 dated 9.1.2008 as far as it relates to the petitioner stands quashed. Patna High Court Dated 15th of December, 2011 Anand Kr./NAFR ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)