JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Vikram Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report being Kharsawan P.S. Case No. 38 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 554 of 2011, the subsequent charge-sheet and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the said case. The First Information Report was registered for offence under Section 147/148/149/353/332/335/307/324/326 of Indian Penal Code against unknown and now the same is said to be pending in the court of ACJM at Saraikela.

Arguments of the petitioner

4. The crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier on the same set of facts, an F.I.R. bearing Kharsawan P.S. Case No. 37 of 2011 was registered on 18.07.2011 against the petitioner and 19 other accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 147/148/149/447/307/379/427/323/324 of the Indian Penal Code and also added section 411 of Indian Penal Code and the informant of the said case was manager, personnel and Industrial Relations of Abhijeet Group of Companies. He submits that in the said First Information Report being Kharsawan P.S. Case No. 37 of 2011, charge-sheet was submitted on 17.09.2011 and although the petitioner was named in the first information report, but ultimately charge-sheet was not submitted against the petitioner. However, it is not in dispute that further investigation in connection with Kharsawan P.S. Case No. 37 of 2011 is still pending but it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation is not pending as against the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel submits that the allegation and content of the first information report being Kharsawan P.S. Case No. 37 of 2011 is similar to that of the present case i.e. Kharsawan P.S. Case No. 38 of 2011 although the informant of both the first information reports are different, but both the first information reports are related to one and the same occurrence which took place on the same date. He submits that on the one hand, in the first FIR the petitioner has not been charge-sheeted, but the same investigating agency after investigating the subsequent FIR submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner even though the case was registered against unknown.

6. The learned counsel submits that the law is well-settled that on the same set of facts, two First Information Reports cannot be instituted and all the subsequent information is to be treated as statement under Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure and institution of 2nd First Information Report on the same set of facts and incidence i.e Kharsawan P.S. Case No. 38 of 2011, is not permissible and accordingly, the same is fit to be set –aside and the entire criminal proceedings be set-aside.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement passed in the case of “T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Others” reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 and has referred to paragraphs 17 to 20 of the said report. He has also relied upon another judgement reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254 (Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others), paragraphs 20 to 23. The learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the present petition be allowed.

Arguments of the opposite party

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the allegations in the two First Information Reports are different and also relate to different point of time. So far as the first F.I.R. is concerned, it was filed by the officer of the company for the incident relating to earlier point of time, alleging gathering of crowd and their illegal acts in the company premises and also assaulting of the officers and staffs of the company and looting away the property of the company. So far as the subsequent FIR w