Heard Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned Advocate representing the petitioners in both these applications and Mr. Sandip Kumar, learned Advocate representing the informant-respondent no. 9 as also learned counsel representing the State.

2. Cr.W.J.C. No. 1009/2017 has been filed by Ram Bihari Pandey and Bhola Nath Prasad Gupta who are, though not named in the First Information Report under challenge but their names have transpired in course of investigation. Cr. Misc. No. 24537/2017 has been filed by Bimal Kumar Nopani who is named in the F.I.R. In both the cases the F.I.R. lodged by respondent no. 9 has been sought to be quashed. Both the cases have been clubbed together by virtue of order dated 12.07.2017 passed by learned co-ordinate Bench of this court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 1009/2017.

3. The First Information Report being Chhatauni P.S. Case No. 91/2017 registered for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 326, 307, 302, 353, 337, 338/120B of the Indian Penal Code has been sought to be quashed on the ground that with regard to the same occurrence Anchala Adhikari, Motihari had already lodged the F.I.R. being Chhatauni P.S. Case No. 89 of 2017 under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 337, 338, 332, 333, 353, 307, 326, 427, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this court towards the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 to submit that a second F.I.R. for the same occurrence and the same incident cannot be allowed to be registered. Learned senior counsel has taken this court through the contents of the F.I.R. lodged by Choudhary Basant Kumar Singh, Anchal Adhikari, Motihari wherein according to learned senior counsel the entire sequence of occurrence which took place on 10.04.2017 have been narrated. It is his submission that a bare perusal of the written report submitted by Anchal Adhikari would show that he has disclosed how the husband of the informant received burn injuries and even some of the persons who were allegedly involved in the occurrence have been identified and their names have been disclosed.

5. Learned senior counsel submits that following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony (supra), the second F.I.R. is fit to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the informant (respondent no.9) as well as learned counsel representing the State have opposed the reliefs prayed for in the writ application. Mr. Sandip Kumar, learned Advocate representing the informant has placed before this court the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Sreekumar vs. State of Kerala reported in 2018(2) PLJR (SC) 293. Learned counsel submits that the F.I.R. as contained in Annexure-1 lodged by the informant (respondent no.9) need not be quashed or need not be interfered with by this court only on the ground that it relates to the same occurrence.

7. It is submitted that the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony as canvassed by learned senior counsel representing the petitioners has to be understood in the light of the reasoned judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Sreekumar (supra). Reliance has been placed by Mr. Sandip Kumar on paragraph 28 to 33 of the said judgment which are quoted hereunder for ready reference:

“28. In our opinion, the law on the subject which governs the controversy involved in the appeal is no more res integra and settled by the decision of this Court (three-Judge Bench) in the case reported in Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakash & Ors., (2004) 13 SCC 292 and also by the subsequent decisions.

29. Their Lordships after examining all the previous case laws on the subject laid down the following proposition of law in the following words speaking through Justice N. Santosh Hegde:

"23. Be that as it may,