JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner have filed this Misc. Petition purporting to be under s. 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the FIR No. 551 dated 17.10.1994 lodged at Police Station, Hanumangarh by one Inder Raj. 2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are : The complainant Inder Raj initially lodged FIR No. 148 at Police Station, Hanumangarh on 22.3.1994 against petitioner Harbanshlal and some unknown persons making certain allegations. The second FIR i.e. FIR No. 551 dated 17.10.1994 was also lodged by the same person i.e. Inder Raj Joshi against Ashok Nagpal, Tejendra Nagpal and Surendra on the same allegations which were contained in FIR No. 148 dated 22.3.1994 at the same Police Station. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the above FIRs and submitted that the allegations contained in both the FIRs are identical. The only difference being that in FIR. No. 148/1994, the complainant has stated the name of Harbanshlal and others whereas in the later FIRs, he named three more persons i.e. Ashok Nagpal, Tejendra Nagpal and Surendra. He has submitted that lodging of another FIR with regard to the same allegations at the same Police Station is against the law. He has further submitted that with regard to the offence relating to FIR case No. 148 of 1994, the petitioner Harbanshlal and others obtained anticipatory bail from the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh on 6.6.1994. According to the learned counsel, if the police is allowed to investigate the second FIR again, it would certainly cause grave injustice to the accused and would result in undue harassment to the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for non-petitioner has submitted that the Court may order that the second FIR may be tagged with the first FIR and the investigation can be done. 6. I have perused both the FIRs and according to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegations contained in both the FIRs are identical. In fact, the allegations relates to the vehicle No. RSF 2664. Since the allegations in the second FIR are also same, it was not proper for the complainant to have lodged the second FIR. In fact, the allegations relates to the vehicle No. RSF 2664. Since the allegations in the second FIR are also same, it was not proper for the complainant to have lodged the second FIR. Even it was not proper for the Police to have registered a case on receipt of the second FIR because the Police was already seized of the matter. 7. Ordinarily, when a cognizable crime is reported to the Police, it will be their statutory duty and right to investigate into the offence reported and the courts are reluctant to interfere in the exercise of their duty though under the inherent powers conferred by Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, interference in appropriate cases can be made but the law does not permit the Investigating agency or the Police to register a second case on the same allegations against the same persons on the basis of the same story again. In the instant case, the Police is making investigation with regard to the FIR No. 148 of 1994. It was, therefore, unjust and against the law to register a second FIR with regard to the same allegations again. Under these circumstances, it is just and proper to quash the second FIR No. 551 dated 17.10.1994 of Police Station, Hanumangarh.I, therefore, allow this Misc. Petition and hereby quash the FIR No. 551 of 1994 of Police Station, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.Petition Allowed. *******