JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR No. 253/93 dated 29.6.1993 of Police Station, Kotwali, Distt. Sri Ganganagar where under a case for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B, 406 & 471 IPC has been registered against the petitioners. 2. A few facts need be recalled for the proper disposal of this application. The son of the petitioner Paramveer Singh was married to the daughter of Shri Natha Singh on 12.12.1990 according to the customs of the Sikh Religion. It is alleged that Shri Natha Singh and his relatives and friends gave substantial valuable articles as present to Balveerkaur on her marriage. It is also alleged that after marriage Balveerkaur was not treated properly by her husband as also by her father-in-law (the petitioner) and his wife Nirmalkaur. They subjected her to physical as well as mental cruelty and the reason was that she did not bring in desired dowry. She was also subjected to physical assault. Balveerkaur often made complaints regarding the maltreatment or the cruel behaviour of her-in-laws to her parents and brothers. Natha Singh and his family members met the petitioner and his family member members and tried to reconcile the matter but it appears that eventually the relations between the two families became very strained. Paramveer Singh, at the instance of his parents, even threatened Balveerkaur by firing a gun in the air. Thereafter the petitioner and his family members, in order to show that Paramveer Singh was residing separately, got him settled at Ganganagar but he always acted whatever was dictated by the petitioner and his family members. Eventually Balveerkaur was turned out of her matrimonial house. Paramveer Singh, with the help of his parents and relatives, left India and settled abroad deserting Balveerkaur. The petitioners kept all the articles of dowry with him including a Maruti Car (Engine No. 564904 and Chesis No. 4020056). The car belonged to Smt. Harbanskaur and she has been recorded as the registered owner in the record of Registration Authority. The above car was purchased from Smt. Harbanskaur in the name of Balveerkaur by Natha Singh. However, the registration continued to remain in the name of Smt. Harbanskaur. When the relations between two families totally broke, Natha Singh demanded all the articles of dowry from the petitioner but he did not return the same. The above car was purchased from Smt. Harbanskaur in the name of Balveerkaur by Natha Singh. However, the registration continued to remain in the name of Smt. Harbanskaur. When the relations between two families totally broke, Natha Singh demanded all the articles of dowry from the petitioner but he did not return the same. Shri Natha Singh then lodged a FIR No. 29/93 at Police Station Vijainagar whereupon the police registered a case under sections 498-A & 406, IPC against the petitioner and others. It is stated that investigation followed and a challan has also been filed relating to the aforesaid FIR No. 29/93. It is important to mention here that in FIR No. 29/93 Shri Natha Singh also made allegations regarding the above Maruti Car which he gave to the petitioner. 3. The second FIR No. 251/93 was again lodged by Shri Janger Singh s/o Shri Natha Singh in which it was, inter alia, alleged that after the departure of Paramveer Singh to the foreign country the petitioner, in complicity with Saurang Pani, made a conspiracy and prepared a forged sale-deed on 2.7.1992 in respect of the above maruti Car. In the above sale-deed the seller was Smt. Harbanskaur and the purchaser was one Akshay Bhati. It was alleged that the signature of Smt. Harbanskaur was forged either by the petitioner or by somebody at his instance. On receipt of this report another case has been registered against the petitioner for offences mentioned above. 4. I have heard Shri M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri S.G. Ojha, learned counsel for the non-petitioner. 5. Shri Garg has stated that Natha Singh in the previous report 29/93 has made allegations in respect of several articles of dowry which he and his friends and relatives allegedly gave to his daughter Balveerkaur on her marriage as dowry. There is also a mention of this very Maruti Car. He submitted that on the above FIR a case was registered and after investigation a challan has also been filed and the case has been pending trial. According to Shri Garg the alleged forged transaction of the sale of car is alleged to have taken place on 2.7.1992. There is also a mention of this very Maruti Car. He submitted that on the above FIR a case was registered and after investigation a challan has also been filed and the case has been pending trial. According to Shri Garg the alleged forged transaction of the sale of car is alleged to have taken place on 2.7.1992. Natha Singh and his family members were very well aware of this transaction and there was no reason why they did not make allegations against the forged transaction of the car in the FIR No. 29/93. The allegations made in the later FIR pertained squarely with the Maruti Car which was also the subject matter of the FIR 29/93. Since all the allegations pertained to the same transactions, investigation of all the allegations pertaining to the car ought to have been made the subject matter of the FIR lodged at Vijainagar. The impugned FIR no. 251/93 is manifestly mala fide and has been lodged in order to abuse the process of law and to wreak vengeance on the accused on account of private and personal grudge. While lodging the impugned FIR after such inordinate delay, Janger Singh thought it not proper to offer explanation either for lodging the above report so late or for not including the above allegations in the previous FIR No. 29/93. Even Shri Janger Singh did not lodge the relevant documents alongwith the FIR No. 251/93. Shri Garg has, therefore, contended that in order to harass the petitioner the two first information reports have been lodged against him whereas the above allegations ought to have been incorporated in the FIR No. 29/93. It is a settled law that under section 482 Cr.P.C. an aggrieved party can seek indulgene of the Court in quashing such FIR, the object of which is only to misuse the process of law and subject the petitioner to undue harassment on account of personal spite or grudge. Shri Garg has also contended that this Court in Harbanslal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 245 has held that for a single offence only one FIR can be lodged and if two reports have been lodged, one is to be quashed. 6. Shri Garg has also contended that this Court in Harbanslal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 245 has held that for a single offence only one FIR can be lodged and if two reports have been lodged, one is to be quashed. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the non-petitioner have stoutly resisted the application on the ground that although there is an allegation of misappropriation of the above Maruti Car in the FIR No. 29/93 lodged by Natha Singh but in the subsequent FIR which has been impugned in this application fresh allegations have been made. It has been alleged that the petitioner in complicity with other person, forged sale-deed of the above car and the signature of the registered owner namely, Smt. Harbanskaur was forged either by the petitioner or somebody under his instructions. It was a separate offence and linger Singh was entitled to lodge the above report and the police has not committed irregularity or illegality in registering a new case on the allegations made in the above report. It was also contended that this Court, while exercising the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., must act with due care and caution and such powers should be exercised in the rarest of a rare cases. This case does not fall in that category. The powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be utilised for interfering with investigation as has been held in Ramlal Yadav v. State of U.P., 1989 Cr. L.J. 1013 and State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajanlal & Ors., 1992 Cr. L.J. 527. 7. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the contents of both the aforesaid first information reports. Before I advert to the facts stated in the above FIR, I may state that under section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court can exercise powers in order to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It cannot be gainsaid that the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. in a matter of quashing the FIR, must be exercised keeping in view the above principles. It cannot be gainsaid that the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. in a matter of quashing the FIR, must be exercised keeping in view the above principles. In State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal's while illustrating the categories of cases in which the High Court may exercise powers u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India or under section 482 Cr.P.C., the Apex Court has justified such exercise when a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and /or where the proceedings are maliciously instituted with a ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 8. This Court in Harbanslal & Ors. has held that when investigation was continuing in the earlier FIR, no subsequent FIR can be lodged on the same facts and the Courts are not reluctant in such cases for invoking powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing such subsequent FIR in the interest of justice. 9. While narrating facts, I have clearly made reference to the alleged criminal breach of trust in respect of the above Maruti Car. In my opinion Natha Singh had every opportunity and knowledge also regarding the alleged forged transaction in respect of sale of the said car which his son alleged in the subsequent FIR. The date of the alleged forgery is very relevant and material and clinching in this case. In the subsequent FIR No. 251/93 the informant clearly stated the date of offence to be 2.7.1992. It may be stated that the FIR was lodged on 27.2.1993. In other words, when the FIR was lodged on 27.2.1993 Natha Singh and his son must be aware of the alleged forged transaction in respect of the above car. Since the above allegation of the forgery related to the same car, the allegations formed one series of acts to form the same transaction. The relevant Section in this regard is Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It says that 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. The expression "same transaction" should be given etymological meaning and in. It says that 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. The expression "same transaction" should be given etymological meaning and in. order that a series of acts be recorded as the same transaction, they must be connected together in some way, as for instance, by proximity of time, unity of place, unity or community of purpose or design and continuity of action. However, the real and substantive ways for determining whether several offences are so connected together as to form one transaction depend upon whether they are related together in point of purpose or has caused an effect or as principle of subsidiary acts so as to constitute one continuous action. As stated earlier, Natha Singh could have made the above allegations which were alleged by his son Janger Singh in the subsequent FIR and they could have been investigated together during investigation as per the provisions of Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is eloquently manifest from the narration of the above facts that Natha Singh wanted to purposely omit making allegations regarding forgery of the above car which his soh made in the subsequent FIR in order to harass the petitioner out of personal grudge by misusing the process of law. It is also important to note that in the impugned FIR Janger Singh was obliged to furnish explanation for not lodging the report early. He has not even stated in the report when he derived knowledge about the above forged transaction. He has not stated any explanation. Of course, he clearly stated the date of alleged offence to be 2.7.1992. Hence it cannot be said that he was not aware of the above transaction when the FIR was lodged. 10. What I want to emphasise is that if Natha Singh could have made the allegations which is the sum and substance of the subsequent FIR, investigation could have been made regarding these allegations in the former FIR. Hence it cannot be said that he was not aware of the above transaction when the FIR was lodged. 10. What I want to emphasise is that if Natha Singh could have made the allegations which is the sum and substance of the subsequent FIR, investigation could have been made regarding these allegations in the former FIR. Thus these allegations could have been the subject matter of the former FIR because it was a series of transaction namely that Natha Singh gave the above car in dowry to his daughter, the accused committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the above car and that he made a forged sale of the same to Akshay Shah. All these acts in my opinion formed one transaction. 11. I am, therefore, disposed to hold that the second first information report was lodged in order to wreak vengeance on the petitioner and to misuse the process of law or the police machinery in embarking upon investigation which could have been the subject matter of the first information report. It is also worth-mention that Janger Singh alleged an offence under section 406 IPC also in respect of the above car against the petitioner. 12. For the above reasons I find it a fit case in which the subsequent FIR No. 251/93 may be quashed in the facts and circumstances stated above. 13. For the above reasons, I allow the petition and hereby quash the subsequent FIR No. 251/93 qua the petitioner.Petition allowed. *******