JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. the petitioner seeks to quash the FIR No. 164/2003, police station-Chapar, Distt. Churu for offence under Sections 380, 457, 311 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the second respondent Shankar Lal submitted a complaint in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh stating inter alia that he alongwith his brother Vijay Kumar used to carry on business of selling silver and gold ornaments in a rented shop in Chapar. The shop was taken on rent from one Pratapmal which was later on sold to the accused Bhom Singh (petitioner herein) by the decedents of Pratapmal. After death of his brother Vijay Kumar his wife and son shifted to Calcutta. He was also not attending the shop on account of illness and the shop remained closed for long. In the intervening night of 3rd and 4th January, 2003 the accused Bhom Singh broke open the lock and entered in the shop. With the help of labourers he took out the articles from the shop. The said complaint was sent for investigation by the learned Magistrate under the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.PC. The police registered a case under Sections 427, 380 and 448 IPC. The police found it to be a false and fabricated case, thus, forwarded a final report. A request was also made for prosecution of the complainant Shankar Lal under Section 182/211 IPC. The said final report was accepted by the learned Magistrate. 3. Thereafter, another complaint was filed in the court of Magistrate, II class, Sujangarh on 2.12.2003. The said complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. The police has registered the case as FIR 164/2003. In the complaint itself it is averred that on the same facts the case was registered earlier in which police has forwarded the final report. It is stated that the second FIR has been lodged for the reason that the investigation in the earlier case was not fair. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel that on the basis of second FIR no fresh investigation can been undertaken. I am in complete agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel. If the complainant apprehended some foul investigation in the earlier FIR, he could have filed a protest petition. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel that on the basis of second FIR no fresh investigation can been undertaken. I am in complete agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel. If the complainant apprehended some foul investigation in the earlier FIR, he could have filed a protest petition. If he was not having knowledge about the filing of the final report and after it was accepted without notice to him, he could have challenged the same before the competent court but in no case, on the same facts, a fresh investigation can be started. It is held by the Apex court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala reported in 2001 SCC (Cri.) page 1048 that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or some occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. Thus, the investigation under the impugned FIR is clearly an abuse of process of law.Consequently, the petition is allowed. The FIR No. 164/2003 police station Chapar stands quashed.Impugned FIR quashed-Petition allowed. *******