D.K. Sinha, J.Petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the second F.I.R. vide Jaridih P.S. Case No.90 of 2008 dated 13.9.2008 registered for the alleged offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code being not maintainable for the reasons that an U.D. Case No.10 of 2008 was registered earlier for the same occurrence at the Jaridih Police Station on 30.6.2008.

2. The Investigating Officer after investigation in the case of unnatural death submitted final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The occurrence as presented by the prosecution took place at different stages. The sequence of the occurrence is that the wife of the informant Saroj Kumar Jaiswal namely Lakshmi Jaiswal was kidnapped by the petitioner on 31.5.2008 as alleged by the informant giving rise to Chas P.S. Case No.131 of 2008 registered on 24.6.2008. Lakshmi Jaiswal was recovered by the Chas police but thereafter she opted to live with her parents at Jainamore. The police after investigation of the said case submitted final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure observing that the allegation as levelled by the informant against the petitioner accused Ajay Paswan was not found true.

4. In the next sequence the informant alleged in respect of Unnatural Death Case No.10 of 2008 registered at Jaridih Police Station that his wife Lakshmi Jaiswal committed suicide on 30.6.2008 out of agony and pain on account of her alleged kidnapping. Yet, the informant did not disclose or pointed out finger against any person or the petitioner as an abettor of such suicide. The Jaridih Police after investigation of U.D. Case No.10 of 2008 submitted final form on 13.9.2008 before the S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat but simultaneously the Jaridih Police sought for and the Court of S.D.J.M. without recording reasons in the ordersheet dated 13.9.2008 accorded permission to the Police for further investigation of the U.D. Case No.10 of 2008.

5. Nevertheless, in the meantime, the informant Saroj Kumar Jaiswal lodged an another F.I.R. giving rise to Jaridih P.S. Case No.90 of 2008 against the petitioner Ajay Paswan for the alleged offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code by way of presenting a written report on 13.9.2008 in respect of suicide committed by his wife Lakshmi Jaiswal and the petitioner as abettor though he had given the petitioner a clean chit earlier in the written report on the basis of which U.D. Case No.10 of 2008 was registered and the S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat had already accorded permission after applying his judicial mind for further investigation of U.D. Case aforesaid.

6. The learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Roy emphatically submitted that the petitioner carries no grievance at all if the U.D. Case No.10 of 2008 is permitted for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the behest of the Investigating Officer but the petitioner is highly prejudiced for the institution of fresh case for the same offence by the same informant giving rise to Jaridih P.S. Case No.90 of 2008 which is barred under law as a person cannot be vexed twice for the same allegation. The statement of the informant if made subsequently before the police either orally or in writing for the same alleged occurrence may be treated as his statement falling under Sections 161/162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. Mr. Roy, the learned Sr. Counsel relied upon a decision reported in (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 181 wherein the Apex Court in T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala and others observed:

“An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 CrPC is commonly known as the first information report (FIR) though this terms is not used in the Code. It is a very important document. And as its nickname suggests it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a