JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr. P.C") are as follows : The petitioner was an employee working under the informant. The informant lodged an FIR on 10.9.1996 before the Inspector-in-charge, Dharmasala Police Station on the basis of which Dharamsala police station case No. 229 of 1996 corresponding to G.R.Case No. 888 of 1996 is pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jajpur. In the said FIR it has been alleged that the present petitioner (the accused) has collected money from different places on different dates but did not account for the same. After registration of the case, the Inspector-in- charge, Dharamsala police station has sent xerox copies of the FIR to five other police stations such as Madhupatna police station, Mangalabag police station, Purighat police station, Barchana police station and Jajpur police station for registration and necessary action as some of the allegations contained in the FIR related to persons/places within the jurisdiction of such other police stations. It is stated that on the basis of such xerox copies of the FIR, different cases are being registered in different police stations and investigations are being made, as a result of which the petitioner faces harassment for being subjected to criminal prosecution at different places. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 181(4), Cr. P.C, the Inspector- in-charge of Dharmasala police station has jurisdiction to investigate into all the allegations as the money alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioner is to be accounted for at a place within the jurisdiction of Dharamsala police station. The petitioner has further submitted that entertaining such xerox copies of FIR at different police stations within the jurisdiction of different Magistrates would ultimately prejudice the petitioner as he may have to face the trial at different places for the alleged offences which arise out of the same FIR. 2. It is obvious that the Inspector-in-charge of Dharamsala police station has sent the xerox copies of the FIR to different police stations as the incidents related to those other police stations. It is further obvious that the Inspector-in-charge, Dharmasala police station entertained some doubt about jurisdiction relating to some of the incidents which occurred beyond the jurisdiction of Dharmasala police station. 3. It is further obvious that the Inspector-in-charge, Dharmasala police station entertained some doubt about jurisdiction relating to some of the incidents which occurred beyond the jurisdiction of Dharmasala police station. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the several provisions of the Police Manual, has contended that once the case has been registered there was no scope for transferring the case to any other police officer having jurisdiction over a different place. It is further submitted that the Inspectors-in-charge of the other police stations to which the copies were sent should not have initiated fresh cases but should have given their own police station number to the original FIR and, at any rate, in the absence of any original FIR the xerox copies could not have been treated as original FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the cases subsequently instituted upon such xerox copies of the FIR should be quashed. 4. Since such action has been taken by the Inspector-in-charge on the basis of some doubt relating to the jurisdiction of the Inspector-in- charge, Dharmasala police station over many of the incidents alleged in the FIR, it may not be proper to quash the other cases, as prayed for by the petitioner as the Inspector-in-charge, Dharmasala police station may have some practical difficulty in investigating into all the allegations. On the other hand, allowing the other police stations to carry on the investigation into the different incidents arising within their respective jurisdiction on the basis of self-same FIR may give rise to several prosecutions in different Courts which may ultimately prejudice the accused-petitioner. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I think interest of justice would be served by directing that the Crime Branch of the State Government shall investigate into the offences alleged to have been committed in the FIR on the basis of which Dharmasala P.S.Case No. 229 of 1996 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 888 of 1996 has been started. For the aforesaid purpose, the records relating to the investigation already made by the different police stations be handed over to the Crime Branch of the State. Since the FIR on the basis of which the first case was initiated is within the jurisdiction of the S.D.J.M., Jajpur, it is directed that the Crime Branch shall file its charge sheet before the S.D.J.M., Jajpur. Since the FIR on the basis of which the first case was initiated is within the jurisdiction of the S.D.J.M., Jajpur, it is directed that the Crime Branch shall file its charge sheet before the S.D.J.M., Jajpur. The G.R.Cases pending before the Magistrate in other Courts shall also be transferred to the Court of the S.D.J.M., Jajpur and all such cases are to be clubbed together by the S.D.J.M., Jajpur. The petitioner has already been released on bail. He shall continue on the same bail till disposal of all such cases. It is made clear that this order relates to the FIR dated 10.9.1996 lodged at Dharmasala police station and the incidents described therein and would have no effect on investigation relating to any other incident not included in the FIR on the basis of which Dharmasala P.S.Case No. 229 of 1996 has been initiated Copies of this judgment be communicated to the Inspectors-in- charge of Madhupatna police station, Mangalabag police station, Purighat police station, Barchana police station and Jajpur Road police station, so that they can take steps to produce the copy of this judgment before the concerned Magistrate. Copies of this judgment shall also be sent to the S.D.J.M., Jajpur, for information and necessary action and the I.G. of Police, in charge of Crime Branch. 5. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of.