A second First Information Report is impermissible in law if it relates to the same incident or is a consequence of the said incident.

In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Giddi P. S. Case No. 03 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. A First Information Report was instituted by the petitioner being Giddi P.S. case No. 71 of 2008 in which it was alleged that the niece of the petitioner was missing along with one Bhola Bhokta but subsequently on 19.09.2008 her dead body was recovered and it was suspected that unknown criminals might have committed the murder.

3. In course of investigation in Giddi P. S. Case No. 71 of 2008 it came to light about the involvement of the petitioner along with other accused persons of committing the murder of Guria Praveen and Bhola Bhogta and on the direction of the Deputy Superintendent of Police C.C.R., Hazribagh a First Information Report was instituted being Giddi P. S. Case No. 03 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. K. Tiwari, learned A.P.P.

5. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that Giddi P. S. Case No. 3 of 2014 could not have been instituted as with respect to the same incident Giddi P. S. case No. 71 of 2008 was already filed. It has been submitted that the reasoning given for instituting the second First Information Report itself seems to be without any basis as the ground which has been taken that if a separate case is not instituted against the petitioner the prosecution evidence would become weak as the petitioner was the informant in Giddi P.S. case No. 71 of 2008. Learned counsel in support of his contention submits that the second First Information Report is a direct consequence of the investigation undertaken in Giddi P. S. Case No. 71 of 2008 and the same cannot be permitted to proceed and in support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment in the case of T. T. Antony vs. State of Kerala And Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat And Others (2010) 12 SCC 254 and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of Investigation And Another reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348.

6. Mr. V. K. Tiwari, learned A.P.P., on the other hand, has submitted that since the petitioner is the informant in Giddi P. S. Case No. 71 of 2008 and since his involvement in committing the murder of Guria Praveen and Bhola Bhogta has surfaced on account of the investigation it was in order to bring the culprit to book a separate First Information Report had been instituted. Learned counsel further submits that both the First Information Reports are different in contents and purport, moresoever as the petitioner is an informant in Giddi P. S. Case No. 71 of 2008 while he is an accused in connection with Giddi P. S. Case No. 3 of 2014.

7. After hearing the rival submissions it appears that the only point for consideration in this application is whether the Investigating Officer of Giddi P. S. Case No. 71 of 2008 could have instituted a separate First Information Report being Giddi P. S. Case No. 3 of 2014 when the incident which relate to the submission of the subsequent First Information Report is a direct fall out of the investigation carried on by the police in the earlier First Information Report. In order to answer the point raised by the learned counsel for the parties it would be apt to refer to the judgment in the case of T. T. Antony vs. State of Kerala And Others (Supra) wherein it was held as follows:-

“19. The scheme of CrPC is that an officer in charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 CrPC on the basis of entry of the first information report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of the evidence collected, he has to form an opini