THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3845 OF 2011 DATED: 01.07.2011 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the First Information Report in Cr.No.50 of 2011 of Markapur Town police station. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 2nd respondent- State. Perused the record. 3. 1st petitioner-A1 is the husband and the 2nd petitioner-A2 is the mother-in-law of the 1st respondent herein. On a complaint given by the 1st respondent, police registered a case in Cr.No.50 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC. Investigation is pending. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier the 1st respondent gave a complaint in respect of the same offences and based on the same, F.I.R.No.173 of 2009 was registered for the offences under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after investigation police filed charge sheet, which was taken cognizance in C.C.No.267 of 2010 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and therefore the second first information report regarding the same offence is not maintainable in view of the decision of the apex Court in T.T.ANTONY v. STATE OF KERALA [1]. 5. It is seen from the copy of the first information report in Cr.No.173 of 2009 and also the charge sheet in C.C.No.267 of 2010 that the said case relates to the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Though the offence under Section 307 IPC is also referred to in the first information report, the same was deleted in the charge sheet, which was confined to Section 498-A IPC. In the present first information report in Cr.No.50 of 2011, a specific allegation is made to the effect that on the night of 02.03.2011 at about 11.00 p.m., 1st petitioner returned home in a drunken state and poured kerosene over the 1st respondent and set fire to her and that she suffered extensive burn injuries on both hands, cheeks, face and neck. When a specific allegation of an attempt of her life has been made in the first information report in Cr.No.50 of 2011 and the said incident is said to have taken place on the night of 02.03.2011, the earlier first information report in Cr.No.173 of 2009 has therefore nothing to do with the present first information report in Cr.No.50 of 2011 and they relate to different incidents on different dates and they are not in respect of the same offence. 6. A perusal of the contents of the first information report in Cr.No.50 of 2011 would disclose that serious allegations were made, prima facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences, which need to be thoroughly investigated. It is therefore not a case where second first information report is lodged in respect of the same offence as sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to quash further proceedings in pursuance of the first information report in Cr.No.50 of 2011. 7. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st July, 2011 Tsy [1] AIR 2001 SC 2637