IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1401 of 2008 GUDDU KUMAR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 2.5.2008. This application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing of the FIR of Sono P. S. Case No. 48 of 2007 dated 2.5.2007 registered under Sections 25(1-B)A, 26, 35 of the Arms Act against these petitioners. It appears from the record that on 1.5.2007 at about 8 p.m. on receipt of the information regarding assembling of some criminals in the house of Santosh Kumar Singh for committing crimes, the informant, Irshad Alam, Officer-in-charge of Sono P. S. along with armed constables and S.T.F. Jawans went near the house of Santosh Kumar Singh. On seeing the police personnels the criminals assembled on the roof of the house of Santosh Kumar Singh began to start indiscriminate firing. The police personnels including S.T.F. Jawans also returned firing. Ultimately, in the next morning at about 6 a.m. police personnels entered the house of Santosh Kumar Singh and arrested eight persons. The police also recovered some illegal firearms from their possession. It also appears from the record that two cases were lodged by the police for the aforesaid occurrence. One bearing Sono P. S. Case No. 47 of 2007 and the other Sono P. S. Case No. 48 of 2007 which is in question. The first FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 353, 332, 333, 307 & 414 of the I.P.C. along with 27 of the Arms Act whereas the second FIR was lodged under - 2 - Sections 25(1-B)A, 26, 35 of the Arms Act. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that both police cases have arisen out the same occurrence. Therefore, FIR of Sono P. S. Case No. 48 of 2007 may be treated to be a statement under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and not separate FIR. No investigation can be made on the basis of subsequent FIR. In support of it, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 2007 (1) PLJR 590: Dinesh Singh @ Dinesh vs. State of Bihar. On perusal of both the F.I.Rs. which are annexure 1 and 2, it appears that first FIR (Annexure-2) was lodged earlier in point of time whereas second FIR (Annexure-1) was lodged on the same date but later on in point of time. In the above cited decision, almost similar matter fell for consideration before this Court and this Court relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2001(6)SCC 181: T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & others, quashed the subsequent FIR lodged in point of time. From the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision reported in 2001(6) SCC 181 as well as by this Court, it is quite clear that second FIR which is annexure-1 is not maintainable in the eyes of law and it should be treated as a statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C. No separate investigation can be made on the basis of the second FIR lodged for the same occurrence. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of - 3 - this case, this application is allowed. The FIR in question, is hereby, quashed. However, materials collected during the course of investigation on the basis of the FIR in question shall be taken into account in investigation of earlier FIR (Annexure-2) i.e. Sono P. S. Case No. 47/07 lodged for the same occurrence. kanchan (Ghanshyam Prasad, J.)