Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’) the petitioner-company through its partner has moved this Court for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. being Vigilance P.S. Case No.20 of 2012 which was instituted under Sections 409, 420, 201, 109, 120B, 468 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts which is relevant for the proper adjudication of the issue involved in this case, in short, is that on the basis of written report of one Ram Sagar, Deputy Director, Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, the aforesaid vigilance case was instituted with allegations that an area of 0.75 acres of Plot No.167 appertaining to Khata No.164 of Mouza-Kadri was transferred to the Welfare Department for construction of Haj House at an estimated cost of Rs.4,88,72,700/-. The work was handed over to be executed by the Jharkhand State Housing Board. Whereafter the construction work was started on 17.07.2007 but on 20.09.2009 when the casting of portico of the Haj House was going on, the entire structure of portico collapsed causing injury to nine labourers. Due to fall of the said portico, the authority presumed that construction of Haj House was sub-standard and irregularities have been committed by the engineers as well as contractors. Thereafter, the State Government handed over the investigation to Vigilance, who entrusted the inquiry to a Technical Expert Committee and the said Committee after inquiry submitted the report showing irregularity, negligence, lack of control over the construction work and non-approval of Architectural Drawing. On the basis of the said report, the aforesaid case was instituted as indicated above showing this petitioner and others as accused.

3. It would be proper to mention here that for the same offence one F.I.R. bearing Doranda/Argora P.S. Case No.371 of 2009 was earlier instituted immediately after the collapse of the portico by one Belal Khan as informant. However, during investigation of this case, the matter was handed over to the State Vigilance, whereafter the Vigilance Case No.20 of 2012 was instituted on 12.09.2012. The Vigilance Department started investigation based on the allegation made in the second F.I.R. and the investigation is still pending. Hence, this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of entire criminal proceeding as well as the second F.I.R. lodged at the instance of Vigilance being Vigilance P.S. Case No.20 of 2012.

4. Mr. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the continuation of the criminal proceeding on the basis of the second F.I.R. as bad in law seriously contended that the investigating agency has to proceed only on the information about the commission of cognizable offence which is first entered in the police station diary under Section 154 of the Code and any subsequent F.I.R. or second F.I.R. information given to the police would be covered under Section 162 of the Code and so the continuation of the proceeding on the basis of second F.I.R. is an abuse of the power of court. It was also submitted that the duty has been cast upon the Investigating Officer not merely to investigate the cognizable offence reported in the F.I.R. but also include connected informations if found to have been committed in course of same transaction and the second information cannot be treated as an F.I.R. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on T.T. Antony Versus State of Kerala & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181 and the case Babubhai Versus State of Gujarat & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 254. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Kashyap further contended that the petitioner was not even contractor appointed by any agency for the construction of the Haj House and even there is no document on record or any agreement or