1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing of FIR No.107/2014 dated 11.03.2014 of Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau, CPS, Jaipur, District Anti Corruption Bureau Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

2. The main ground, to challenge the impugned FIR, taken by the petitioner in this criminal misc. petition as well as during the course of arguments, is that a second FIR in relation to one offence is not maintainable. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 02.04.2013, the FIR No.44/2013 was registered at Police Station, Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh at the instance of one Raj Kumar S/o Kashi Ram for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 166, 467, 468 and 471 IPC while alleging that the petitioner, who was the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bharwana, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, in connivance with Satyanarayan Sharma, Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bharwana, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, had illegally alloted residential pattas to several persons, who are their supporters in respect of land situated in Murabba Nos.48 and 54 of Chak 8 DPN. It is contended that in the FIR No.44/2013, it was specifically alleged that around 85 pattas were illegally issued by the accused persons by preparing forged documents. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that specific allegation has also been levelled against the accused persons that by issuing the illegal pattas to several persons the accused persons have misappropriated lacs of rupees and, therefore, committed offence of cheating and forgery.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the police after thorough investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR No.44/2013, has filed negative final report while concluding that there is no evidence to conclude that the accused persons have committed any offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 166 IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the matter regarding allotment of patta by the Gram Panchayat Bharwana, when the petitioner was working as Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat, was thoroughly investigated by the police and the police has concluded that no offence as alleged in the FIR No.44/2013 is made out against the petitioner but again second FIR in relation to the very same incident has been filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau against the petitioner. It is strenuously argued that in the circumstances narrated above there is no occasion for the Anti Corruption Bureau to register the impugned FIR against the petitioner in respect of the same incident i.e. allotment of pattas by the Gram Panchayat Bharwana to several persons in respect of Murabba Nos.48 and 54 of Chak No.8 DPN.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 2637 , Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in AIR 2013 SC 3794 and Anju Chaudhary v. State of UP & Anr., reported in 2013 Cri. L.J. 776 , the second FIR in relation to the same incident is not permissible under the law and, therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the facts narrated in the impugned FIR are quite different from the facts narrated in the earlier FIR No.44/2013, therefore, no case for interference is made out and the present criminal misc. petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record and also critically examined the FIR No.44/2013 and the impugned FIR.

8. It is noticed that the FIR No.44/2013 was registere