Petitioner has asked for quashing of FIR of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 351/2010 by way of filing instant writ petition.

2. With regard to apprehension of Maoist regarding which confidential information was received, a raiding party was constituted and house of Bhola Sah was cordoned in between night of 15/16.07.2005 and during course thereof, firing was also effected perceiving coming out of members of extremist group resulting casualty of Seema Devi as well as Parvati Devi. During course of search, Rakesh Kumar s/o of Bhola Sah along with Chandan Kumar were apprehended along with recovery of cartridges of different bores, country made pistol, charger for which Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 408/2005 was registered on the statement of petitioner, Ram Sagar Sharma who was the then Officer-in-charge of Sitamarhi P.S. During midst of investigation, the Government entrusted the investigation to CID who, after concluding the same filed final report. Simultaneously, also observed that Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 408/2005 was intentionally drawn up to cover up their own fault by way of false seizure of arms and ammunition as well as fate disclosure and for that, as per, direction two cases were filed one against the petitioner relating to recovery of fire arms/ammunition, the subject matter of instant writ and the other against the members of armed force who had fired resulting death.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the present FIR happens to be out and out the second FIR for the same occurrence for which Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 408/2005 was registered. It has further been submitted that second FIR for the same occurrence is not at all permissible because of the fact that same happens to be barred in terms of Section 162 Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that since Ram Lal Narang’s case reported in 1979 (2) SCC 322 even upto Amit Sah’s Case reported in 2013(2) PLJR 373 (SC), it has conclusively been held that second FIR for the same occurrence is not at all permissible because of the fact that subsequent prosecution is found prohibited under the banner of double jeopardy under Section 300 Cr.P.C. Apart from this, it has been submitted that the present FIR happens to be bad in the background of pendency of protest petition which will callow, in case, is proceeded with as a complaint petition followed with cognizance.

4. Per contra, learned AC to GA-9 submitted that it is not a case where for the same occurrence two FIRs have been instituted rather after conduction of investigation of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 408/2005 instituted on the Fard-e-beyan of petitioner being informant of that case, found false and on account thereof final report was submitted. Therefore, on the basis of conclusion of the earlier investigation, the instant case has been registered and being so the plea of petitioner has got no legal aspiration.

5. It has also been submitted that presence of protest petition will not adversely affect upon the prospect of instant case because of the fact that the present case happens to be at nascent stage, investigation is going on and if during course of trial, the trial court will perceive any adverse impact, then in that event, the trial court will be competent enough to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

6. When a case is registered relating to cognizable offence, it is to be investigated as per law so envisaged under different Sections of Cr.P.C. falling under Chapter-XII and its conclusion is to be seen in terms of Sections-169, 170 as well as 173 of the Cr.P.C. Basically, Section 173 commands the ultimate result under the reign of Section 169 or 170 of the Cr.P.C. because of the fact that in either of the case, the Investigating Officer is required to submit the report in terms of mandate so prescribed under Section-173 Cr.P.C. Section-169 deals with the eventuality whereunder after concluding investigation, the I.O. finds it deficient one leading to filing of final report, contrary to the s