ORDER B. P. DAS, J. — Heard Shri Bijan Ray, learned Senior Advocate, and Shri B. 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. R. 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 Annex¬ure-2, because previously an F.I.R. was lodged on the self-same allegation to the basis of which G.R.Case No. 1218/2001 was registered in the same Court. 2. According to the petitioner, the subsequent F.I.R. in respect of the self-same occurrence is beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, pendency of the second F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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. 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 dis¬trict, appointed himself as the Investigating Officer to investi¬gate into the aforesaid U.D. case. 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 dis¬trict, appointed himself as the Investigating Officer to investi¬gate 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 F.I.R. (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, partic¬ularly on the leg, back and waist besides ligature mark on the neck. It is alleged in the F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. (Annexure-1), a case was registered as Chandanpur P.S. Case No. 100/2001 against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 342/348/330/331/201, I.P.C. and subsequently G. R. Case No. 1218/2001 has been registered on the basis of the said case on the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Puri. p.m. of 2.10.2001. On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R. (Annexure-1), a case was registered as Chandanpur P.S. Case No. 100/2001 against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 342/348/330/331/201, I.P.C. and subsequently G. R. Case No. 1218/2001 has been registered on the basis of the said case on the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Puri. From the facts narrated in the appli¬cation, 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 F.I.R. 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 de¬ceased. As the police officials demanded money for the release of his brother, the informant came to his village and arranged Rs. 3.000/- and when the 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 F.I.R. 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 Sections 342/348/330/331/302/201/506/294/34, I.P.C. 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 F.I.R (Annexure-2) on the basis of which Chandanpur P.B. Case No. 101/2001 and subsequently G. R. Case No. 1213/2001 was regis¬tered, 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. According to the petitioner, registration of the second F.I.R (Annexure-2) on the basis of which Chandanpur P.B. Case No. 101/2001 and subsequently G. R. Case No. 1213/2001 was regis¬tered, 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 Human 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 Offi¬cer, and he has taken up the investigation. The case diary pro¬duced contains a note detailing 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 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 E.O. Sri R.K.Das, O.P.S., Dy. S.P. to hand over charge of enquiry of C. Pur P.S. U.D. Case No. 18/2001 but till toady no case record was given charge to me. Even there was no station diary F.I.R., U.D. F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. Book which contained C. Pur P.S. Case No. 100/dt. 3. X. 2001 at 9. A.M. under Section 342/348/330/331/201, I.P.C. 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. Ctc. who directed me to register a case if any report is submitted to me. Under the above circumstances I treated the written report of Bibhuti Sahu as F.I.R. 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. who directed me to register a case if any report is submitted to me. Under the above circumstances I treated the written report of Bibhuti Sahu as F.I.R. 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, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 2637. In support of his contention that second F.I.R. in respect of self-same incident is not maintainable. The Apex Court in para¬graphs 18 and 19 observed as follows : “18. An information given under Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is commonly known as First Information Report (FIR) though this term is not used in the Code. It is very impor¬tant document. And as its nick name suggests it is the earliest and the first information 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 Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. It is quite possible and it 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 Section 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 First Information Report F.I.R. postulated by Section 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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forward his report to the concerned Magistrate under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. However, even after filing such a report if he comes into posses¬sion of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR, he is empowered to make further investigation, normal¬ly with the leave of the Court, and where during further investi¬gation 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 Section 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 investi¬gation. In my opinion, it would not be proper to quash a proceed¬ing at the threshold and that too in a case where there is alle¬gation of murder of a person while in police custody. The ratio of the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the present case at the stage where the case is under investi¬gation. In my opinion, it would not be proper to quash a proceed¬ing at the threshold and that too in a case where there is alle¬gation 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 : “.........It is too well settled that the first information report is only an initiation to move the machinery and to inves¬tigate 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 ], a three Judge Bench of this Court indicated that the High Court should be loath to interfere at the threshold or thwart the prosecution exercising its inherent power under Sec¬tion 482 or under Articles 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 Bhade [1997 (2) SC 397] where this Court sounded a word of cau¬tion and stated that such power should be sparingly and cautious¬ly 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 regu¬lated 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 cycle. In this regard, I may refer to the oftly-quoted decision of the apex Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Ben¬gal, AIR 1997 S.C. 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 inher¬ent in Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution required 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 Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interroga¬tion 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 an anarchism. No civi¬lised 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 Article 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-cooperation of the general police with the investigation undertaken by the H.R.P.C. and the fact that no case was regis¬tered 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. Crl. Misc. Case dismissed.