ORDER :

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners has prayed to quash and set aside the F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-11 of 2017 registered with Vedach Police Station, District : Bharuch.

2. Mr. Majmudar, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners raised a short point for the consideration of this Court that the F.I.R. in question is a continuation of the F.I.R., which was registered by the respondent-authority being F.I.R. No.I-41 (N) II- 17 of 2016, which is pending investigation before the respondent-authority.

2.1. Mr. Majmudar, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the present F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-11 of 2017, registered with Vedach Police Station, District : Bharuch, is filed for offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the earlier F.I.R. being C.R. No.II-17 of 2016, which is registered with the same Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 2(16), 2(36), 9, 49(a)(b), 50, 51(1) of the Animal Conservation Act, 1972 and Sections 29 and 30 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the G.P. Act, 1951. The allegations in both the F.I.Rs as stated above are levelled against the petitioners herein, who are accused of F.I.R. being C.R. No.-II 17 of 2016 and the present F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-11 of 2017. It is alleged that the applicants herein - original accused and accomplices stole Bolero Pick Up Car bearing Registration No. GJ-20-V-2026 and that forged the number plate and have produced R.C. Book of the said car in connection with the said F.I.R. and have tried to mislead the respondent-authority.

2.2. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Majmudar that Bolero pick-up car No. GJ-20-V-2026 has been stolen by the original accused Saied Ismail and his accomplices and they have used forged number plate and have produced the R.C. book of the said car in connection with the said F.I.R. and have tried to mislead the police. With the aforesaid and certain other allegations, the impugned F.I.R. is filed.

2.3. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Majmudar that earlier F.I.R. i.e. C.R. No. II-17 of 2016 was registered against 10 accused persons alleging that on 24.06.2016 the alleged offences were committed by the original accused persons by shooting with a 12 bore gun and by killing peacocks and by using its meat and other body parts and, therefore, the said F.I.R. was registered.

2.4. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Majmudar that one more criminal complaint is registered under the Animal Conservation Act, 1972, being F.I.R. No.I-11 of 2017 as stated above, and the impugned F.I.R. i.e. second F.I.R. being C.R. No.II-17 of 2016 is registered after a substantial delay on 25.07.2017 for the alleged offences as stated above.

2.5. Placing reliance on the above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Majmudar has submitted that there cannot be a second F.I.R. in respect of the same offence/event, in view of the fact that whenever any further information is received by the Investigating Agency, it is always in furtherance of the first F.I.R. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar has further submitted that in view of above, the impugned F.I.R. being a second F.I.R. arising out of the same incident is required to be quashed and set aside.

3. Learned APP Ms. Mehta was not in a position to controvert the submissions advanced by the learned advocate Mr. Majmudar appearing for the petitioners.

4. Heard learned advocate appearing for the respective parties.

5. The submissions advanced by learned advocate Mr. Mr. Majmudar requires consideration, in view of the fact that the first F.I.R. came to be registered against the applicants-original accused as stated above being F.I.R. No.C.R.II No.17 of 2016 and the second F.I.R. came to be filed for the same incident being impugned F.I.R. in question at this stage.

6. At this stage, It would be apposite to refer the following decisions :

(i) State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajanla