JUDGMENT 1. - Through this misc. petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the F.I.R. No. 171/97, 372/98 and 383/98 of Police Station Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar. 2. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that all the three F.I.Rs. are in respect of the forgery, cheating and misappropriation committed by the petitioner during the period April, 1985 to April, 1997 and there is no justification of registering three cases for the same offence. Mr. Garg relying on the case of Harbans Lal & Ors. v. State & Ors. 1996 Cr.LR (Raj.) 245 , Harchand Singh v. State of Raj. 1998 Cr.LR (Raj.) 32 and Ghanshyam Singh v. State of Raj, 1991(1) RCC 306 submitted that the two F.I.Rs. No. 372 and 383/98 should be quashed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Kharlia, on the other hand, though did not dispute that the period of offence in all the F.I.Rs. is the same, yet contended that it may not be possible for the I.O. to file one charge-sheet in respect of all the items of embezzlement, and therefore the F.I.R. should not be quashed. They also pointed out that the allegations in 3 cases materially differ and even accused are not the same. 4. I have carefully considered the above arguments. 5. In the F.I.R. No. 171, which was lodged first in time, it was alleged that the petitioner, who was clerk and the other officials of the Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank entered into criminal conspiracy and committed criminal breach of trust for a sum of Rs. 905000/- by making forged documents during April, 1985 to April, 1997. On this report a case under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC was registered. 6. In F.I.R. No. 372/98, the case alleged is that the petitioner who was employed in the Head Office of the Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank obtained a sum of Rs. 60,000/- from the Goal Bazar Branch but deposited in the Head Office Rs. 40,000/- only and thus committed criminal breach of trust of Rs. 20,000/-. 7. The gist of third F.I.R. is that the petitioner obtained a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- from the Goal Bazar Branch but he deposited only a sum of Rs. 50000/- in the Head Office and thus committed embezzlement of Rs. 60,000/-. 8. True it is, all the three F.I.Rs. 20,000/-. 7. The gist of third F.I.R. is that the petitioner obtained a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- from the Goal Bazar Branch but he deposited only a sum of Rs. 50000/- in the Head Office and thus committed embezzlement of Rs. 60,000/-. 8. True it is, all the three F.I.Rs. pertain to the period between April, 1985 to April, 1997, but it cannot be said that the subject matter of the F.I.R. No. 372/98 and 383/98 is the same which is the subject matter of F.I.R. No. 171/97. The allegation in the F.I.R. No. 171/97 are that the petitioner and others had entered into criminal conspiracy, they committed forgery in the record and had siphoned a sum of Rs. 905000/- from the Head Office of the Bank. The case has been registered under Section 120-B, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 479 IPC. 9. The allegations in the F.I.R. Nos. 372 and 383 are totally different. The prosecution case in these F.I.Rs. is that the petitioner was entrusted a certain sum by the Goal Bazar Branch, to be deposited in the Head Officer, but he deposited less amount and embezzled the remaining amount of Rs. 20,000 + 60,000 total 80,000/-.There is, of course, no justification of two separate F.I.Rs for these items as the period is the same and the allegations are almost same. The subject matter of F.I.R. No. 383/98 can very well be investigated in F.I.R. No. 372/98. As already stated, the subject matter of these F.I.Rs. is not covered by the allegations of F.I.R. No. 171/97. 10. The cases relied on by Mr. Garg are clearly distinguishable. In the case of Harbans Lal v. State of Raj. (supra) one F.I.R. was lodged with the allegations that one 'H' and unknown person had committed offence. In the second F.I.R. three more persons were named as the perpetrators of the crime. Both the F.I.Rs. were in respect of the same occurrence, and therefore, this Court quashed the second F.I.R.Similarly, in the case of Harchand Singh v. State (supra), the first F.I.R. was with regard to the allegations of cruelty and criminal breach of trust of the items of dowry which included one Maruti Car. The second F.I.R. was also lodged in respect of Maruti Car alleging that the accused had forged the sale deed. The second F.I.R. was also lodged in respect of Maruti Car alleging that the accused had forged the sale deed. It is in these circumstances, this Court held that the allegations of second F.I.R. can be investigated in the first F.I.R. Report of the case of Ghanshyam Singh v. State (supra) does not contain the facts. Therefore, it is difficult to say anything. However, a reading of the order shows that as both the F.I.Rs. related to one offence, therefore this Court quashed the second F.I.R. 11. In the instant case, as held, though the second and third F.I.R. pertain to the same offence, the first F.I.R. is on different subject matter. 12. Consequently, the misc. petition is partly allowed. The F.I.R. No. 383/98 is hereby quashed The subject matter of this F.I.R. may be investigated in the F.I.R, No. 372/98.Petition Allowed. *******