IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11496 of 2008 BALDEO PRASAD, son of Late Murat Mahto, resident of Mohalla Habibpur, Sohsarai, P.S. Sohsarai, District Nalanda …….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Dr. Sachidanand Singh, son of Late Gopal Singh, Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Harnaut, P.S. Harnaut in the district of Nalanda ……………… Opposite parties ----------- For the Petitiner: Mr. Anjani Kumar,Advocate For the State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ------- 3. 14.05.2010 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR of Harnaut P.S. Case No. 6 of 2008 registered on 9.1.2008 under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477(B)/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of certain audit objections with regard to alleged illegal withdrawals from the Provident Fund accounts of the employees of the Primary Health Centre, Harnaut, Harnaut P.S. Case No. 171 of 1994 has been registered on 4.6.1994 against the Clerk Cum Accountant one Sri Ram Briksh Pandit and Chargesheet has been submitted against him on 11.7.1996 showing that investigation was still pending. Subsequently the present F.I.R. has been lodged afresh in which the petitioner and five others including the aforesaid Ram Briksh Pandit have been made accused. He relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 (T.T.Antony Vrs State of Kerala & ors.) to urge that the present First Information Report, the second one in sequence for the same offence was not maintainable as it can well be examined in the first FIR where 2 investigation is pending. It is next urged that the petitioner was posted as the Medical Officer Incharge at the Primary Health Centre, Harnaut, during the period 1.1.1990 to 24.4.1990 whereas the allegations in the present F.I.R. are for the financial year 1995-96 and 1996-97. The next submission on behalf of the petitioner was that while lodging the present First Information Report the Incharge Medical Officer, Harnaut, has also requested the Police to submit a modified chargesheet in Harnaut P.S. Case No. 171 of 1994 and in which the records of Harnaut Primary Health Centre has been deposited as exhibits. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the subject matter of Harnaut P.S. Case No. 171 of 1994 and Harnaut P.S. Case No. 6 of 2008 are for different periods of time and for different audit objections. It is, therefore, incorrect to suggest that the subject matter of the two First Information Reports is the same. Merely because both FIRs pertain to Primary Health Centre at Harnaut shall not be sufficient justification for quashing of Harnaut P.S. Case No. 6 of 2008. Harnaut P.S. Case No. 171 of 2004 appears to have been lodged in pursuance of audit carried out for the period 1986-87 till 1994-95. It allegedly reveals wrongful provident fund withdrawal between the periods 20.11.1992 to 25.9.1993. That has been investigated and chargesheet has been submitted stating that the investigation was still pending. If, any others are made accused in pursuance of further investigation, it shall remain confined in its applicability to the substance of the First Information Report i.e. the period between 20.11.1992 till 3 25.9.1993 arising out of the audit works between the years 1986-87 till 1994-95. Present Harnaut P.S. Case No. 6 of 2008 on the face of it relates to audit objections for a different period of time i.e. 1995- 96 and 1996-97. It is therefore very apparent that this F.I.R. is with regard to a different audit objection for a different financial year. The fact that there may be an earlier F.I.R. with regard to financial misappropriation at the same Health Centre in an earlier audit objection for different amounts, shall not automatically vitiate Harnaut P.S. Case No. 6 of 2008 as a second FIR for what was one occurrence. Merely because the Incharge Medical Officer may have opined that chargesheet may be submitted in the First Information Report for a period beyond the subject matter of the First Information Report itself cannot be sufficient ground for this Court to hold that Harnaut P.S. Case No. 6 of 2008 was not sustainable. If an occurrence takes place, every incident connected to that occurrence and to all those who may be involved in that occurrence shall form part of one transaction and in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of T.T.Antony (Supra) no second F.I.R. for the same occurrence would lie. But if the occurrences are different and pertain to different period of time when the allegations for the period of time in the second F.I.R. remains unconnected with the previous FIR the amounts in the two FIRs and period of audit objections separate, this Court finds it difficult to hold that Harnaut P.S. Case No. 6 of 2008 is not sustainable. 4 The contention of the petitioner that he was not posted at the Primary Health Centre at Harnaut during the period 1995-96 and 1996-97 are his defence to be considered at the appropriate stage but certainly does not warrant interference by quashing of the F.I.R. on the plea of what may be termed as an alibi at this stage. The submission that Column 3 of the F.I.R. of Harnaut P.S. Case No. 6 of 2008 mentions the period of occurrence from 1986 to 1994 does not impress the Court at all in view of the fact that from the body of the F.I.R. it is more than apparent that the allegations pertains to 1995-96 and 1996-97 beyond the aforesaid dates. This application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)