Subsequent F.I.R. lodged for the same occurrence cannot be sustained, and it is an abuse of process of law to allow two separate proceedings for the same occurrence.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including F.I.R. bearing Jamua P.S. Case No. 143 of 2009 as well as order taking cognizance dated 03.10.2009 passed in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No. 143 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No.1621 of 2009, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.

3. The F.I.R. has been lodged against seven accused persons including petitioner alleging therein that while the informant was discharging her duty in the office on 28.07.2009 then about 2.P.M. some accused persons including the petitioner entered into her office and misbehaved with her and torn the government document and broken the window of the office. It is further alleged that one Ashok Paswan forcefully took away Panchayat Sewak namely, Karnanand Singh and brutally assaulted him. It is further alleged that three women were also accompanying with Ashok Paswan out of whom one Meena Devi pushed her.

4. Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that police after registration of F.I.R. investigated the case and submitted chargesheet against Shankar @ Shiv Kumar Yadav keeping the investigation pending against the petitioner and others in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No. 143 of 2009. He further submits that the learned court below took cognizance vide order dated 03.10.2009 in which petitioner has been summoned. He further submits that for the same occurrence another F.I.R. was lodged which was numbered as Jamua P.S. Case No. 138 of 2009 dated 28.07.2009 in which petitioner has also been summoned to face trial and the case is pending. He further submits that in the present case as well as Jamua P.S. Case No. 138 of 2009 date, time and occurrence are disclosed which is same. He further submits that by Letter No. 142 dated 28.07.2009, both the F.I.Rs. have been forwarded by the Block Development Officer, Jamua Block. He further submits that in the light of section 220 of the Cr.P.C. if in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. He submits that in both cases petitioner has been summoned.

5. Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State submits that there are two occurrence that is why two separate F.I.Rs. have been lodged. He submits that there is no illegality in the summoning order.

6. The court has perused the contents of Jamua P.S. Case No 143 of 2009 as well as Jamua P.S. Case No 138 of 2009 and finds that Jamua P.S. Case No 138 of 2009 has been lodged on 28.07.2009 and Jamua P.S. Case No 143 of 2009 has been lodged on 31.07.2009. Contents of both the F.I.Rs. are same. Further it transpires that by the same Letter No. 142 dated 28.07.2009, both the F.I.Rs. have been forwarded by the Block Development Officer, Jamua Block. In both cases petitioner has been made accused. F.I.R. being Jamua P.S. Case No. 138 of 2009 is earlier one and subsequently, Jamua P.S. Case No. 143 of 2009 has been lodged which is subject matter of this petition. It is well settled that for one offence, two cases cannot be allowed to be instituted and the accused persons are not required to face two trial. For the same set of occurrence two proceedings cannot be allowed in the light of judgment in the case of “T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala” reported in the case of (2001) 6 SCC 181. To allow second F.I.R. to be continued amounts to be abuse of process of law. The second F.I.R. for the same offence or occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences is not permissible. This aspect has been again considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2013) 6 SCC 384 (Paras 20, 25, 43,