B. P. DAS, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri Bijan Ray, learned Senior Advocate, and Shri N. P. Pradhan, Advocate, for the petitioner, and Shri Sisir Das, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, for the State. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'cr. P. C. ') with a prayer to quash the proceedings in G. S. Case No. 1213/2001 alleged to have been registered against him in the Court of the S. D. J. M. , Puri, on the basis of the F. I. R. in Annexure 2, because previously an F. I. R. was lodged on the self-same allegation on the basis of which G. R. Case No. 1218/2001 was registered in the same Court. According to the petitioner, the subsequent FIR in respect of the self-same occurrence is beyond the purview of Ss. 154 and 156 of the Cr. P. C. Therefore, pendency of the second FIR will cause undue harassment to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been harassed and has suffered a lot due to the second FIR as well as due to the pendency of the Criminal Proceedings as the petitioner has been suspended from service since the registration of the first FIR. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been roped in falsely in the alleged offence. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the direction of this Court dated 12-12-2001, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has produced the case diaries of both the cases. The L. C. Rs. of both the cases were also called for and are available for my perusal. Perusal of the case diaries of both the cases and the records of both the cases, namely, G. R. Case Nos. 1218 and 1213 of 2001, and the facts narrated in the application, tends to reveal as follows :- one Rabindra Kumar Sahoo alias Dhadu was brought to Chandanpur Police Station in connection with a cycle-theft incident and was kept in the police hazat. On 2-10-2001 at about 6-30 p. m. the aforesaid Rabindra was found hanging inside the hazat latrine by means of a Lungi. On 2-10-2001 at about 6-30 p. m. the aforesaid Rabindra was found hanging inside the hazat latrine by means of a Lungi. Thereafter Chandanpur P. S. U. D. Case No. 18/2001 was registered and the present petitioner, who was then posted as the officer-in-charge of Chandanpur P. S. in Puri district, appointed himself as the Investigating Officer to investigate into the aforesaid U. D. case. Subsequently, on the direction of the Superintendent of Police, Puri, the investigation of the case was handed over to one Ratnakar Das, Deputy Superintendent of Police (L. R.), Puri, who, during the course of investigation of the aforesaid case, filed an FIR (Annexure-1) before the Chandanpur P. S. on 3-10-2001 alleging therein that the deceased Rabindra Kumar Sahoo was brought to the P. S. by the petitioner on the plea of interrogation in connection with a cycle-theft case and was kept confined in the P. S. hazat since 30-9-2001 and on 2-10-2001 at about 6-30 p. m. the deceased was found hanging from the sky-light rod of the hazat latrine by means of a Lungi. The petitioner along with his other staff brought down the dead body by releasing the tie-knot. During the inquest, some visible marks of injuries were noticed on the dead body of the deceased, particularly on the leg back and waist besides ligature mark on the neck. It is six alleged in the FIR that during the enquiry it was further ascertained that the petitioner assaulted the deceased during the course of interrogation in order to recover the so-called stolen cycle. On perusal of the FIR book, Station Diary book and other, records of the Police Station, no case was found to have been registered in connection with the alleged cycle-theft case nor was any reference available regarding the cause of detention of the deceased inside the hazat of the Chandanpur P. S. for such a long period of more than 24 hours, i. e. , from 30-9-2001 early part of night till 6-30 p. m. of 2-10-2001. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR (Annexure-1),a case was registered as Chandanpur P. S. Case No. 100/2001 against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Ss. 342/348/330/331/201, IPC and subsequently G. R. Case No. 1218/2001 has been registered on the basis of the old case on the file of the learned S. D. J. M. , Puri. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR (Annexure-1),a case was registered as Chandanpur P. S. Case No. 100/2001 against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Ss. 342/348/330/331/201, IPC and subsequently G. R. Case No. 1218/2001 has been registered on the basis of the old case on the file of the learned S. D. J. M. , Puri. From the facts narrated in the application, it appears that while the investigation was in progress in connection with the aforesaid G. R. Case No. 1218/2001, the brother of the deceased, namely, Bibuli alias Bibhuti Sahoo, lodged an FIR in the Chandanpur P. S. on 6-10-2001 alleging therein that the present petitioner wrongfully confined his brother inside the police station hazat without any reason and while the informant enquired about the illegal detention and assault on his brother, the present petitioner threatened him to go out of the police station and abused him in filthy languages. Again at about 6 p. m. the informant went to the police station and found that the petitioner along with his other staff was assaulting the deceased. As the police officials demanded money for the release of his brother, the informant came to his village and arranged Rs. 3,000. 00 and when he reached the police station with the money at about 7 p. m. , he was informed that his brother had committed suicide in the hazat and after enquiry he came to know that the police personnel of Chandanpur P. S. had given several kick-blows to the deceased resulting in the death and in order to screen himself from the charges, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station, i. e. , the present petitioner, hanged the dead body of the deceased in the hazat. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR dated 6-10-2001 (Annexure-2), a case being Chandanpur P. S. Case No. 101/2001 was registered against the petitioner and others for the alleged offences under Ss. 342/348/330/331/302/201. 506/294/34, IPC and subsequently G. R. Case No. 1213/2001 was registered on the file of the learned S. D. J. M. , Puri. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, registration of the second FIR (Annexure-2) on the basis of which Chandanpur P. B. Case No. 101/2001 and subsequently G. R. Case No. 1213/2001 was registered, as well as the investigation so continuing in this regard are bad and not valid in law. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, registration of the second FIR (Annexure-2) on the basis of which Chandanpur P. B. Case No. 101/2001 and subsequently G. R. Case No. 1213/2001 was registered, as well as the investigation so continuing in this regard are bad and not valid in law. ( 5 ) PERUSED the case diaries as well as the L. C. Rs. of both the cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case has been handed over to the Muman Rights Protection Cell (in short 'm. R. P. C. ') and one B. K. Patra, Inspector of Police, M. R. P. C. , Cuttack, has been appointed as the Investigating Officer, and he has taken up the investigation. The case diary produced contains a note detaining the circumstances leading to registration of Chandanpur P. S. Case No. 101/2001. Considering its importance, the same is reproduced herein below:-"i may note here that I arrived at Puri D. P. O. on 4. X. 01 with the office order of Addl. D. G. P. , M. R. P. C. , Cuttack and met with S. P. /addl. S. P. , Puri. Discussed with them. They have been pleased to direct me to continue the enquiry and handed over Puri Dist. D. O. No. 2448 dt. 4. X. 01 in this connection. Since 4. x. 01 I had requested the M. O. Sri R. K. Das, O. P. S. , Dy. S. P. to hand over charge of enquiry of C. Pur P. S. V. D. Case No. 18/2001 but till today no case record was given charge to me. Even there was not station diary, FIR, V. D. FIR and C. C. for my perusal till 5. x. 01 5. 25 p. m. On 5. x. 01 at 5. 25 p. m. I saw FIR Book which contained C. Pur P. S. Case No. 100/dt. 3. x. 2001 at 9 a. m. u/s. 342/348/330/331/201, IPC. This case was regd. on the report of E. O. Sri R. K. Das, O. P. S. , Dy. S. P. against O. I. C. Debendra Ku. Dash. The said case was not given charge to me also. Finding no alternative I discussed with D. I. G. , M. R. S. J. , etc. who directed me to register a case if any report is submitted to me. S. P. against O. I. C. Debendra Ku. Dash. The said case was not given charge to me also. Finding no alternative I discussed with D. I. G. , M. R. S. J. , etc. who directed me to register a case if any report is submitted to me. Under the above circumstances I treated the written report of Dibhuti Sahu as FIR and took up the investigation. "this is a case where the investigation is in progress and, as submitted by the learned counsel for the State, the petitioner is yet to be apprehended. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, draws my attention to a decision of the Apex Court in T. T. Antony v. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 2637 , in support of his contention that second FIR in respect of self same incident is not maintainable. The apex Court in paragraphs 18 and 19 observed as follows :-"18. An information given under sub-section (1) of S. 153 of Cr. P. C. is commonly known as First Information Report (FIR) though this term is not used in the Code. It is very important document. And as its nick name suggests it is the earliest and the first informantion of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer-in-charge of a police station. It sets the criminal law into motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Ss. 169 or 170 of Cr. P. C. as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under S. 173 of Cr. P. C. It is quite possible and the happens not frequently that more informations than one are given to a police officer-in-charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in S. 154 of Cr. P. C. apart from a vague information by a phone call or cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary. Kept for this purpose, by a police officer-in-charge of police station is the Frist Information Report FIR Postulated by S. 154 of Cr. P. C. apart from a vague information by a phone call or cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary. Kept for this purpose, by a police officer-in-charge of police station is the Frist Information Report FIR Postulated by S. 154 of Cr. P. C. All other information made orally or in writing after the commencement of the Investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the First Information Report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under S. 162 of Cr. P. C. No such information statement can properly be treated as an FIR and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of the Cr. P. C. . . . . . . . . . . 19. The scheme of the Cr. P. C. is that an officer-in-charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Ss. 156 or 157 of Cr. P. C. on the basis of entry of the First Information Report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of evidence collected he has to form opinion under Sections 169 or 170 of Cr. P. C. as the case may be, and forward his report to the concerned Magistrate under S. 173 (2) of Cr. P. C. However, even after filing such a report if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR, he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the Court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports, this is the import of sub-section (8) of S. 173, Cr. P. C. . " ( 6 ) THE ratio of the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the present case at the stage where the case is under investigation. In my opinion, it would not be proper to quash a proceeding at the threshold and that too in a case where there is allegation of murder of a person while in police custody. " ( 6 ) THE ratio of the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the present case at the stage where the case is under investigation. In my opinion, it would not be proper to quash a proceeding at the threshold and that too in a case where there is allegation of murder of a person while in police custody. In this connection, I may refer to a decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. O. C. Kuttan, (1999) 2 Supreme 182 wherein it was observed as follows (para 6) :-". . . . . . . . . IT is too well settled that the first information report is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into a cognizable offence and, therefore, while exercising the power and deciding whether the investigation itself should be quashed, utmost care should be taken by the Court and at that stage it is not possible for the Court to shift the materials or to weigh the materials and then come to the conclusion one way or the other. In the case of State of U. P. v. O. P. Sharma, 1996 (7) SCC 705 : 1996 Cri LJ 1878, a three Judge Bench of this Court indicated that the High Court should be loath to interfere at the threshold of thwart the prosecution exercising its inherent power under S. 482 or under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be and allow the law to take its own course. The same view was reiterated by yet another three Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhad (1997) 2 SCC 397 where this Court sounded a word of caution and stated that such power should be sparingly and cautiously exercised only when the Court is of the opinion that otherwise there will be gross miscarriage of justice. The Court had also observed that social stability and order is required to be regulated by proceeding against the offender as it is an offence against the society as a whole. . . . . . . . The Court had also observed that social stability and order is required to be regulated by proceeding against the offender as it is an offence against the society as a whole. . . . . . . . "this is a case where the allegation against the petitioner is that he is involved in a heinous crime like murder and that too while the deceased was in the police custody, alleged to have been brought to the police station in connection with an offence of theft of a cycle. In this regard, I may refer to the oftly quoted decision of the Apex Court in D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 , wherein it was observed as follows :-"22. Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the Rule of Law. The rights inherent in Article 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot whisk away the problem. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Art. 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise, if the functionaries of the Government become law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchanism. No civilised nation can permit that to happen. Does a citizen shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman arrests him ? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his arrest? These questions touch the spinal cord of human rights jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic 'no'. The precious right guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, under-trials, detenus and other, prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by laws. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic 'no'. The precious right guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, under-trials, detenus and other, prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by laws. " ( 7 ) KEEPING in view the compelling circumstances narrated by the Investigating Officer in the case diary relating to G. R. Case No. 1213/2001, as quoted above, which prima facie transpire non-co-operation of the general police with the investigation undertaken by the HRPC and the fact that no case was registered pursuant to the report submitted by the D. S. P. (L. R.), Puri, in Chandanpur P. S. Case No. 100/2001 till registration of G. R. Case No. 1213 on the basis of the report of the Inspector of Police, H. R. P. C. , Cuttack, in Chandanpur P. S. Case No. 101/2001, and looking into the judicial pronouncements on the question of quashing of investigation at the threshold, I am not inclined to entertain the present application. The criminal misc. application is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.