D.K. Sinha, J.- The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the criminal prosecution of the petitioner in connection with Golmuri (Burma Mines) P.S. Case No. 14 of 2005, corresponding G.R. No. 220 of 2005 including the order dated 28.3.2005 by which cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur against the petitioner, now pending in the Court of Shri S.K. Choudhary, Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

2. The prosecution story in short was that when the informant Sub-Inspector of Police Umesh Prasad Singh was engaged in checking of the vehicles on the highway, he suspected as such had given signal to the riders of two motorcycles coming from the side of railway station heading towards Burma Mines to stop but the riders speeded their motorcycle, however, they were intercepted on chase. The rider of Splendor Hero Honda Motorcycle No. JH05E/8972 Mukesh Sharma disclosed his name, parentage and address and its pillion rider disclosed his name being Chandan Mishra i.e. the petitioner herein. The rider of the L.M.L. motorcycle disclosed his name being Sanjay Kumar Sinha and on interrogation the pillion rider disclosed his name Madhupal. The informant suspected foul play on exe-mining the Hero Honda motorcycle as a different Registration number was found behind the registration plate put on the said motorcycle and its handle lock was also found broken. The rider Mukesh Sharma admitted his guilt before the informant and stated that Splendor Hero Honda motorcycle was stolen one and all of them were proceeding for the disposal of the said motorcycle. All the accused including the petitioner were arrested and F.I.R. was lodged under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code against all of them. A seizure list of the motorcycles was prepared. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against them under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken under the said section against them.

3. Mr. Das, learned Counsel submitted that the theft of the motorcycle in question was instituted by one Shyamlendu Mohan Ghosh giving rise to Adityapur P.S. Case No. 25 of 2005 for the alleged offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown as he reported missing of his motorcycle from the parking place. The petitioner after being apprehended in the instant case viz. Golmuri (Burma Mines) P.S. Case NO.14 of 2005 was also remanded in Adityapur P.S. Case No. 25 of 2005 and after submission of charge-sheet cognizance of the offence was taken by the Court of C.J.M., Seraikella under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against him on 27.3.2006. In that manner two cases were instituted viz. one for recovery of motorcycle at Golmuri (Burma Mines) Police Station and another for theft of the said motorcycle at Adityapur Police Station.

4. Mr. Das, learned Counsel pointed out that a person cannot be prosecuted twice for single offence though the occurrence took place in the same transaction.

5. Mr. Das, learned Counsel relied on a decision reported in AIR 2001 SC 2637. The Honoble Supreme Court in T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and Others with Damodaran P. and Others vs. State of Kerilla and Others* observed,

"It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more informations than one are given to a police officer-in-charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case he need not enter everyone of them in the station house diary and this is implied in Section 154 of Cr.P.C. apart from a vague information by a phone call or cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary kept for this purpose, by a police officer-in-charge of police station is the first information report-F.I.R. postulated by Section 154 of Cr.P.C. All other info