[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1879/2007 KAILASH CHAND SONI Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Date: 22/02/2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Rajesh Goswami for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. V.K. Mishra for the complainant-respondent. **** The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the FIR No. 352/2007 registered at Police Station Rajgarh, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 420, 493 and 376(2) IPC. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent filed a complaint before the Court below against the present petitioner which was sent to the investigating agency and FIR No. 352/2007 came to be lodged at Police Station Rajgarh, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 420, 493 and 376 (2) IPC. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on prior occasion also, the complainant had moved a complaint before the Court below for the offence under Section 493 IPC against [2] the petitioner narrating the same facts which came to be dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 14.09.2007. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that second FIR is not maintainable in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2001) 6 SCC 181, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offences- Only information about commission of a cognizable offence which is first entered in station house diary by officer in charge of the police station can be regarded as FIR under S. 154- All such subsequent informations will be covered by S. 162- Officer in charge of th police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided under Section 173 Cr.P.C. After referring the judgment of the Hon'ble Suprme Court in the case of T.T. Antony (supra), [3] learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner by way of filing complaint upon which FIR No. 352/2007 came to be registered for the offences which were alleged in the earlier complaint filed before the Court below for the offence under Sections 493 Cr.P.C. and the same was rejected by the Court below vide order dated 14.09.2007. I have heard rival submissions of the respective, carefully gone through the material available on record and perused the contents of the FIR as well as the complaint. The earlier private complaint was filed by the complainant before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Alwar and the same was rejected by the Court below vide order dated 14.09.2007 and the Court below refused to take cognizance under Section 493 IPC. The said complaint was not sent to the police for investigation and registering the FIR. But on the present complaint, the trial Court sent it to the police for investigation and on the basis of which, FIR No. 352/2007 came to be registered against the petitioner at Police Station Rajgarh, District Alwar on 18.09.2007 for the offences under Sections 420, 493 and 376(2) IPC and [4] investigation commenced and the matter is under investigation. Thus, the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony (supra) that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the facts of the present case are altogether different as the earlier complaint was outrightly rejected by the Court below whereas on the second complaint, the Court below directed to investigate into the matter and FIR came to be lodged and it is not the case of second FIR. In view of these facts, the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony (supra) is not applicable to the instant case. Consequently, the present criminal misc. petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. The order dated 15.11.2007 passed by this Court stands rejected. The stay application also stands dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/