The main legal point established is that there can be no second FIR and fresh investigation for the same occurrence or incident, and a single investigation should cover all connected offenses arising from the same transaction.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 16.6.2006 in Chausa P.S. Case No. 73/1998/G.R. No. 73/1998 registered under Section 304 of the Penal Code pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhepura.

3. Learned Counsel submits that Chausa P.S. Case No. 6/1995 came to be lodged on 19.1.1995 by the petitioner under Section 304 of the Penal Code. The petitioner went to arrest a person against whom there were warrants of arrest. An altercation ensued at the time of arrest when the villagers also chased the absconder who was frail suffering from tuberculosis and leading to his death. Final Report then came to be submitted against unknown in the light of the Post Mortem Report. The deceased was an absconder in several cases details whereof are mentioned in Para 18(i) to (ix). The final report came to be accepted by the court below and the matter was closed.

4. For the very same occurrence Chausa P.S. Case No. 73/1998 then came to be registered on 29.8.1998 by the CID on the allegation that during investigation it had transpired that it could not be established that the deceased was suffering from tuberculosis or that he was assaulted by unknown villagers at the time of arrest. On the contrary certain witnesses had stated that the deceased died on account of assault by the petitioner.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has centered his entire argument on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2001 (2) PCCR 414 corresponding to (2001 )6 SCC 181, (T.T. Anthony V/s. State of Kerala & Ors). The submission is that in the police case lodged by him after investigation final form came to be submitted and accepted by the court below, Once the final form was submitted and accepted the question of further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. did not arise as the stage for the same had been crossed. If any materials had transpired to falsify Chausa P.S. Case No. 6/1995. it was for the police to submit an appropriate charge-sheet in the same itself. The second F!R for the same offence was therefore not sustainable in the eye of law.

6. Counsel for the State urged that how the deceased died, whether it was a natural death or he was killed are matters which shall surface during trial itself and that the Court should refrain from interfering at this initial stage. Chausa P.S. Case No. 73/1998 came to be lodged when fresh materials have transpired as distinct from the materials discovered in Chausa P.S. Case No. 6/1995.

7. in the case of T.T. Anthony (supra) relied upon by the petitioner, the incident took place the same day at two locations. Two police cases came to be registered with regard to the occurrence. One occurrence was in the proximity of the Town Hall and the other was in the vicinity of the Police Station. Simultaneously on a public uproar a judicial enquiry was set up headed by the District and Sessions Judge under the Commission of Enquiry Act. The report of the Enquiry Commission was forwarded to the Director General of Police for taking action on basis of the findings of the Commission. Directions were issued to the Inspector General of Police (North Zone) to register a case immediately and have the same investigated by a Senior Police Officer. A police, Crime No. 268/97 case then came to be registered under Section 302 of the Penal Code against certain officials who were alleged to have ordered firing leading to the registration of former two FIRs. The first two FIRs with regard to the occurrence at the Town Hall and another near the Police Station were registered as Crime Nos. 353/1994 and 354/1994, mainly against the workers and the youth wing of the political party concerned. Both these cases came to be closed as being false and undetected. The Police officials who were made accused in the subsequent FIR based on the report of the Enquiry Commission registered as Crime No. 268/1997 came to th