IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.836 of 2008 SMT.MEENA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3/ 17/09/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, who is the Mukhiya, seeks quashing of Gaurichak P.S. Case No.103/07 lodged on 9.11.2007 registered under Sections- 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 478, 471 and 120B of I.P.C. The ground urged is that the matter is already pending investigation in Gaurichak P.S. Case No.105/07 instituted on 11.11.2007. There cannot be two simultaneous F.I.R’s. with regard to the same occurrence and that in Gaurichak P.S. Case No.105/07 sixteen persons have been named as accused. The petitioner is not one of them. Two F.I.R’s. for an occurrence have been held to be not sustainable. All relevant aspects based on an allegation giving rise to different issues can be investigated in one F.I.R. itself. But, if the allegations in the two F.I.R’s. are different, it shall not be proper for this Court at this initial stage to hold that the two allegations were intertwined one of the F.I.R’s. was not sustainable. That shall amount to pre-judging the issue. At 2 this stage, which F.I.R. came to be lodged first also assumes significance. Gaurichak P.S. Case No.103/07 has been registered on 9.11.2007. It alleges the date of occurrence as 2.11.2007. The allegations are of having obtained fraudulent receipts without actual disbursement of Rs.200/- each to the beneficiaries. The taking away of 3 truckloads of grains in absence of the villagers and hiding the same elsewhere with intention to causing wrongful gain and wrongful loss on the pretext of distribution. That a bogey was raised by the accused that grains had been looted on 4.11.2007 by spreading a rumour. The petitioner is one of the three named accused along with the Panchayat Secretary and one J.E. Thakur. The allegation against 16 named accused, the petitioner not being one of them, in Gaurichak P.S. Case No.105/07 is of loot of grains by the named accused on 4.11.2007. Prima facie, to this Court, the two F.I.R’s. appear to be different. Gaurichak P.S. Case No.103/07 alleges an occurrence of 2.11.2007 specific in details and the manner in which it was committed. Gaurichak P.S. Case No.105/07 is different and narrates an occurrence in a different manner of 4.11.2007. The significance of the two different dates of occurrence assumes significance at this initial stage. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade this Court from the recitals in Gaurichak P.S. Case No.103/07 that in fact both of the occurrences related to the alleged loot of grains of 4.11.2007 and, therefore, the statement in Gaurichak P.S. Case No.103/07 in the concluding lines that a false rumour was spread that grains were looted on 4.11.2007. It would be a matter of investigation as to what occurrence took place on 2.11.2007 and what occurrence took place on 4.11.2007. If two separate occurrences took place, naturally they will have to be investigated separately in accordance with law. These are aspects to be examined by the investigating authority itself and to be acted upon in light of discussion aforesaid with regard to circumstances when two different F.I.R’s. may be sustainable and when they may not be. There is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the investigation or quash Gaurichak P.S. Case No.103/07. The writ application is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)