Judgment 1. Heard. 2. This application under sec. 482 Cr.PC. has been filed to quash the first information report of Laxmipur (Gidhaur) RS. Case No. 67 of 2006 registered under sections 419 and 307 of the I.P.C. alongwith the provisions of Arms Act as well as Explosive Substances Act against the petitioner and others. 3. It appears that raid was conducted in the house of this petitioner by the police on 24.5.2006 and some arms were recovered from possession of different persons. Two F.I.Rs. were registered on the basis of the fardbeyan lodged by two different persons. The first F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the information given by S.I., Manoj Kumar, Officer-in-Charge, Jhajha which has been numbered as Laxmipur (Gidhaur) P.S. Case No. 66 of 2006. The other F.I.R. which is in question was lodged on the basis of information given by S.I. Vishwanath Tuddu and numbered as Laxmipur (Gidhaur) P.S. Case No. 67 of 2006. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that both the police cases have arisen out of the same occurrence. The first one is Laxmipur (Gidhaur) RS. Case No. 66 of 2006. Thereafter, the fardbeyan in question was jodged which is the second F.I.R. It is further submitted that the second F.I.R. is not maintainable in the eye of law. It can only be treated as the statement falling under sec. 162 Cr.P.C. Therefore, no investigation can be made on the basis of the subsequent information. In support of it, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2001(6) SCC 181 (T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and Others). 5. On perusal of both the F.I.Rs. (Annexures 1 and 2), it appears that the first F.I.R. (Annexure-1) was lodged on 20.5.2006 at 8.15 P.M. Thereafter, another F.I.R. was lodged on the same.day for the same occurrence at 8.15 P.M. In the above cited decision, almost similar matter fell for consideration before the Apex Court and after consideration of the various provisions of the Cr.P.C. the Apex Court in paragraph-20 of the decision has held as follows: "20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Sec.154 CrPC. Thus there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer-in-charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Sec.173 CrPC." 6. Thus, from the above decision of the Apex Court, it is quite clear that the second F.I.R. which is Annexure-2 is not maintainable in the eye of law it can only be treated as a subsequent material and statements under sec. 162 Cr.P.C. No separate investigation can be made on the basis of the subsequent fardbeyan lodged about the same occurrence. It is barred under the law. 7. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this application under sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the F.I.R. in question is hereby quashed, however, in respect of the petitioner only.