IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.10226 of 2008 1. Dhanmanti Devi, W/o. Ramprit Chauhan. 2. Ramprit Chauhan, S/o. Balgobind Chauhan. All resident of village Makanpur Tola Gobindpur Beldari, P.S. Noorsarai, District Nalanda. ……………………….. Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …………. Opp. Party. ----------- 03/ 21.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is a petition for quashing the FIR of Hilsa P.S. Case No. 27 of 2008 dated 20.01.2008 for offence under Section 304 (B)/ 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code which is instituted under Section 156(3) of the Indian Penal Code of a Complaint Case No. 737 C of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with regard to the same occurrence an FIR has also been lodged earlier bearing Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 143 of 2007 dated 29.08.2007 and in both the cases the informant is the same and in both the cases two of the accused is also the same. However, subsequently three more persons have been made accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that second case by the same informant regarding the same occurrence is not maintainable and has relied upon decision reported in 2007(1) PLJR (Dinesh Singh @ Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar) which has been passed upon the High Court decision in T.T. Antony 2001 (6) SCC 181. However, in the two cases lodged there is allegation that the complainant/informant Jayram has married his daughter and 2 there is demand of Rs.25,000/- and for non-fulfillment of the demand the daughter of the informant has been done to death by poisoning. In both the cases the sum and substance of the FIR is the same. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case the first FIR was lodged on 29.08.2007 at Agamkuan P.S. and the second FIR lodged on the basis of complaint and the FIR lodged bearing Hilsa P.S. Case No. 27 of 2008 dated 20.01.2008 and both are by informant Jayram and hence, the FIR dated 20.01.2008 is subsequent to the earlier FIR lodged at Agamkuan P.S on 29.08.2007 and hence, the second FIR may be treated as statement under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C and no separate investigation can be made on the basis of subsequent fardbeyan lodged about the same occurrence. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the second FIR is hereby quashed as it is not maintainable and hence, the second FIR is hereby quashed and the petition is allowed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)