Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. The petitioner in this case has been impleaded as an accused in G. R. No. 2005 of 1993 arising out of Bistupur P. S. case No. 346 dated 14-10-1993 under Sections 302, 120-B of the IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The case relates to a case wherein V. G.Gopal, union leader was killed in a ghastly manner. The information was lodged by the driver of V. G. Gopal, namely, Prabhu Charan. He gave a detailed statement to how V. G. Gopal was killed by gun fire. 2. The petitioner in the case happens to be the political leader and it is alleged that he was also running a parallel union and was opposing the deceased and as such suspicion was there against him also. 3. After investigation, Police submitted chargesheet on 5-1-1994 against five accused persons, namely, Kartik Ghosh, Surya Kant Patel, Ranjan Ahuja, Gouri Shankar Prasad Sinha and Ratan Ghosh, and in that chargesheet, it was mentioned specifically that no materials could be found against the other suspected accused persons including the petitioner. While taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 302 and 120-B of IPC, process were issued against the five accused persons who were charge-sheeted. In that order, the remarks made by the Investigating Officer about suspected accused persons were also mentioned. On 30-4-1994, a supplementary chargesheet alongwith supplementary case diary was submitted by the police and in that supplementary chargesheet, the petitioner was also mentioned as an accused parson. It was mentioned in that supplementary chargesheet that against the petitioner, chargesheet was submitted on the basis of the direction given by the Supdt. of Police. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no material against the petitioner and on further investigation aiso, nothing could be found against the petitioner except that what was there against him on earlier occasion. But the learned court below accepted that supplementary charge-sheet and took cognizance and ordered for isuance of process against the petitioner also. It is the contention of the petitioner that the learned court below while acting on the first chargesheet on 7-1-1994, had already mentioned that no sufficient material could be found against the petitioner on the material submitted alongwith chargesheet then how he could get sufficient material on the subsequent chargesheet when there is no new material revealed. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the learned court below while acting on the first chargesheet on 7-1-1994, had already mentioned that no sufficient material could be found against the petitioner on the material submitted alongwith chargesheet then how he could get sufficient material on the subsequent chargesheet when there is no new material revealed. 5. During the course of proceeding in this application, Mr. S. N.Sinha appearing for the State has submitted that no material could be found against the petitioner in the supplementary case diary except that on direction of Superintendent of Police, supplementary chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner. So, Superintendent of Police was made a party in the case and was asked to submit an affidavit in the case. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, he has taken the plea of ignorance of any chargesheet being filed earlier than on 30-4-1994. According to the Superintendent of Police, the case being a sensational one it was special reported case and when the name of the petitioner appeared as a suspect one in the FIR and when circumstances revealed that he might have hands in the murder, he directed in supervision to submit chargesheet against the petitioner also This counter-affidavit seems to be a evasive one and did not disclose as to how the materials could be found in the supervision when the case diary did not reveal so. In such sort of cases, there is little scope of the court to interfere with the investigation and cognizance when there is ample scope of the petitioner to raise his grievance before the court taking cognizance while the charges are to be framed in the case, but there are some more revealing factors in the case. It is found that before supplementary, chargesheet was submitted by a notification the investigation of the case was already made over to the Central Bureau of Investigation in the month of March, 1995, and it appears that CBI has started investigation and submitted chargesheet against some of the accused persons before the SDJM, Ranchi. It is really not understandable how two parallel cases are being run on the basis of same cause of action. Either the proceeding before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, ought to have bean stopped or both the cases should have been amalgamated. It is really not understandable how two parallel cases are being run on the basis of same cause of action. Either the proceeding before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, ought to have bean stopped or both the cases should have been amalgamated. Although various chances were given, no reply could be given by the Superintendent of Police in supplementary counter-affidavit. It is admitted that investigation was going oa by the CBI and the CBI has not chargesheeted the present petitioner and as such he cannot have any grievance for any parallel investigation being done by the CBI. 7. In support of the supplementary chargesheet, practically, nothing could be submitted before this Court, against the contention of the petitioner that due to political pressure, he was made to be an accused in the case although on the materials on records, there is nothing against him and when in the first chargesheet, it has beea stated specifically that no materials could be found against the petitioner, then in the supplementary chargesheet submitted under Section 173(8) of the CrPC unless there is fresh investigation and fresh materials, no chargesheet can be submitted against the petitioner. 8. Mr. M. M. Sharma, appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner has referred to a judgment of this Court as reported in 1981 CrLJ 976 , Resham Lal Yadav and others V/s. The State of Bihar, wherein it has beea held that no supplementary chargesheet can be submitted under Section 173(B) of the CrPC unless there is further investigation and further evidence being found against any of the accused persons otherwise the same becomes only an abuse of the process of law. 9. In the present case, it appears that considering the sensibility of the case and when some political parties are suspected to be involved in the matter, the State Government thought it proper to get the matter investigated through the CBI and as such notification has already been made and CBI is proceeding with investigation. In that circumstances, such sort of orders of taking cognizance on supplementary chargesheet without any further investigation is definitely bad in the eye of law and moreover, two parallel cases cannot run on the same incident before two courts which would definitely create anomaly near future and against the Principle of double jeopardy. In that circumstances, such sort of orders of taking cognizance on supplementary chargesheet without any further investigation is definitely bad in the eye of law and moreover, two parallel cases cannot run on the same incident before two courts which would definitely create anomaly near future and against the Principle of double jeopardy. It is the State who is to decide to proceed with which case and practically, the case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, should not proceed further until there is completion of investigation by C.B.I. 10. The O. P. No. 2 must take proper steps in the matter as early as possible. The cognizance taken against the petitioner on supplementary chargesheet by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur is hereby set aside for the time being. But it is made clear that CBI shall be at liberty to go with the investigation independently of whatever has been found by the State Police agency, during the course of investigation. If materials are found by the CBI, then chargesheet may be submitted against the petitioner also This setting aside of cognizance by this court would not debar the CBI to freshly investigate and file chargesheet against the petitioner, if materials are found so. 11. With these observations and directions this application is allowed. 12. No order as to costs.