IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24707 of 2007 1. MAHENDRA KUMAR SINHA,SON OF YOGENDRA PRASAD SINHA 2. MANOJ KUMAR SINHA @ SHAILENDRA SINHA, SON OF YOGENDRA PRASAD, BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- DURGAPUR, POLICE STATION-KATIHAR, DISTRICT-KATIHAR Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMIRITI RANJAN DATTA, SON OF LATE RAMBULAL DATTA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJHATTA, BINODPUR, POLICE STATION TOWN, DISTRICT KATIHAR. ----------- 6 3.8.2009 Heard Mr. Chittranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Rishikesh Ojha for Opposite party no.2. The prayer of the petitioner to quash the order taking cognizance dated 27.12.2006 in Katihar Police Station Case No. 272 of 2005 for offences alleged under Sections 467,468,420,120B of the Indian Penal code on the ground of pendency of an earlier police case being Katihar Town Police Station Case No. 197 of 2005 with the same set of allegations in the first look may appear to be attractive but then a close perusal of the allegations made in the two First Information Reports would make it clear that the first case relates to the allegations for the events taking place prior to 12.5.2005, whereas the second First Information Report deals with the allegations of the event after taking place 17.5.2005 and that too in respect of one more person who is not an accused in the first case. - 2 - It would therefore be very difficult at this stage to hold that the institution of second case is barred by law specially when the Court has only taken cognizance. True it is that one of the allegations of obtaining licence of a Fair Price Shops in the name of fake person forms the basis of both the cases but then on reading of the two First Information Reports, it appears that the informant, the Opposite party no.2 has gone much beyond the allegations made in the First Information Report and apparently such case for subsequent set of offences would be maintainable. It may be noted here that earlier an effort on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the First Information Report of the same Police case (2nd case) was examined and rejected by an order of this Court dated 10.1.2007 in Cr. Misc. No. 36545 of 2005. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is, however, made clear that at the stage of framing of charge in the present case, it would always be open for the petitioners to seek amalgamation of the trial of the two cases if the petitioners can satisfy that they emanate from the same set of allegations and virtually is for identical offences. With the aforesaid observations/directions this - 3 - application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) A.Kumar