IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.739 of 2009 BRAJ MOHAN PRASAD, son of Late-Tarkeshwar Prasad, Resident of Mohalla-New Colony, Belwar Ganj, P.S.-Alamganj, District-Patna. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Health Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Under Secretary, Health Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director, Health Department, Bihar, Patna. ……Respondents. ----------- 03. 06.10.2009 In this writ application petitioner challenges the institution of prosecution against him in Alamganj P.S. Case No. 151 of 2009 on the ground that this is the third F.I.R. against him for the same very incident for which two F.I.R.s were already instituted namely Alamganj P.S. Case No. 153 of 2000 and Alamganj P.S. Case No. 262 of 2007. A reference to the F.I.R. in the present case i.e. Alamganj P.S. Case No. 151 of 2009 would show that this has been instituted on basis of an audit report of the Auditor & Comptroller General of India. This audit report clearly mentions that in the earlier audit report it was pointed out that there had been defalcation committed by the petitioner. The auditors wanted to know as to what steps were taken to recover the said amount. The Department was required to enquire into the matter and report to the 2 auditors as to what steps had been taken. This has now form the basis of the third F.I.R. against the petitioner. Reading the audit report in this case and the F.I.R., it is abundantly clear that it makes no discovery of a new defalcation nor does it mention any such fact. To the contrary, it clearly mentions that in the earlier audit it was shown that amounts had been defalcated by the petitioner, what steps for recovery had been taken. Regrettably the authorities instead of appraising themselves to the query as raised have now instituted a third F.I.R. in respect of the same very alleged defalcation. Today itself this Court has allowed the writ application of the petitioner in relation to the second F.I.R. The reason, the logic being the same, the same would also equally apply to the present case. There is no fresh incidence nor is there any fresh cause of action. It is the same old story for which the first F.I.R. was instituted being repeated again and again for the reasons aforesaid and for the reasons as fully discussed in the earlier writ application being Cr. WJC No. 914 of 2007 disposed of today itself. This application is also allowed and the th F.I.R. being Alamganj P.S. Case No. 151 of 2009 in so 3 as it relates to the petitioner stands not maintainable institutionable. The writ application is thus allowed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)