Judgment :- (1) The present petition is filed by petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 herein, who are respectively accused Nos. 1 to 4 in PCR No. 82/2003 on the file of the learned JMFC, Anekal, that is filed by respondent No. 3 herein namely Narayanappa S/o. late Sonnappa against these petitioners and also the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein namely Ravishankar and Cheluvaraj, then Station House Officers of Baiyappanahalli and Attibele Police Stations of Anekal Taluk. (2) The petitioners herein have sought for quashing the entire proceedings initiated against them in the said PCR No. 82/2003 and also FIR issued in Crime No. 23/2003 of Baiyyappanahalli Railway P. S., which came to be registered pursuant to the order dated 18-11-2003 passed u/S. 156(3), Cr. P.C. directing the said Police to register the case and investigate into the matter. (3) Stated in brief the undisputed facts leading to the present petition are as under: (a) The deceased Sonnappa, the father of respondent No. 3 Narayanappa died on or about 6-8-2002. His dead body was found on 7-8-2002. This very 3rd respondent filed his complaint before the police of Baiyyappanahalli Railway PS. On the basis of the said complaint a case in Crime No. 11/2002 of the said Railway PS. came to be registered against one Muniyappa, the eider brother of the 3rd respondent herein and Smt. Rathnamma, the wife of the said Muniyappa, for the offences under Sections 302 and 201, IPC for having caused the death of the deceased Sonnappa. (b) Thereafter, the said case came to be transferred to Attibele P.S. on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the said case came to be registered as Crime No. 7/ 2002 of Attibele P.S. against both the same accused namely Muniyappa and Rathnamma for the said offences. After investigation, the said police submitted charge-sheet against the said accused for the said offences. This 3rd respondent Narayanappa, being informant-complainant in the said case, was cited in the charge-sheet as one of the witnesses for the prosecution. Likewise, the 2nd petitioner herein viz. Appajigowda was also cited in the said charge-sheet as one of the witnesses for the prosecution. (c) After the charge-sheet was submitted, the case came to be committed to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and it came to be registered as SC No. 114/2004. Likewise, the 2nd petitioner herein viz. Appajigowda was also cited in the said charge-sheet as one of the witnesses for the prosecution. (c) After the charge-sheet was submitted, the case came to be committed to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and it came to be registered as SC No. 114/2004. (d) The 3rd respondent Narayanappa, who was complainant in the said Sessions Case came to be examined on 27-11-2006 as P.W. 20. The petitioner No. 2 herein namely Appajappa was examined in the said Sessions Case as P.W. 8. (e) On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution in the said case, the learned Sessions Judge, by his judgment and order dated 22-1-2007 acquitted both the said accused namely Muniyappa, the elder brother of the 3rd respondent Narayanappa and Smt. Rathnamma, the wife of the said Muniyappa. (0 During the pendency of investigation, (i.e. before the charge-sheet could be filed by the police of Attibele P.S) in the said Crime No. 7/2002 which was registered against the said Muniyappa and Rathnamma for the offences under Sections 302 and 201, IPC on the complaint of the 3rd respondent Narayanappa, this very 3rd respondent-complainant filed his PCR No. 82/2003 against the present petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 alleging that it was these petitioners who committed the murder of his father namely the deceased Sonnappa in respect of whose death the said SC No. 114/2004 had been registered against his (complainant's) brother and sister-in-law. (g) After the said PCR No. 82/2003 came to be filed, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Anekal, by his order dated 18-11-2003 passed under Section 156(3) Cr. PC. referred the said complaint of this 3rd respondent Narayanappa to the said Railway P.S. Pursuant to the said order, the said police registered a case in Crime No. 23/2003 of the said P.S. against petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and also the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein for the offences under Sections 119, 219, 202, 212, 213, 218, 221, 222, 302 and 120-B, IPC and issued FIR accordingly. Therefore, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 have filed the present petition u/S. 482 Cr. P.C. seeking quashing of all further proceedings in the said PCR No. 82/2003 and also seeking quashing of FIR and investigation in Crime No. 23/2003 of the said Railway Police Station. Therefore, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 have filed the present petition u/S. 482 Cr. P.C. seeking quashing of all further proceedings in the said PCR No. 82/2003 and also seeking quashing of FIR and investigation in Crime No. 23/2003 of the said Railway Police Station. (4) I have heard the arguments of Sri. Basavaprabhu Patil, the learned senior counsel for petitioner Nos. 1 to 4. Smt. Anuradha Urs, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Narayanappa and also Sri Satish Girji, the learned High Court Government Pleader representing the 4th respondent State herein. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein namely Sri Ravishankar and Sri Chelvaraj, (who are respectively accused Nos. 5 and 6 in PCR No. 82/2003) who are police officers, are not represented by any counsel. (5) I have perused the entire averments made by the 3rd respondent complainant in his complaint filed u/S. 200, Cr. P.C. in PCR No. 82/2003 which came to be referred to the police of Baiyyappanahalli P.S. for investigation. I have also perused the statement of objections filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent Narayanappa and all the documents annexed therewith. Having heard the learned counsels for both the sides, the point that arises for my determination in this petition is -"Whether investigation initiated against these petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 23/ 2003 of Baiyyappanahalli. P.S. which came to be registered against them pursuant to the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC. Anekal dated 18-11-2003 passed in PCR No. 82/2003 that was filed by the respondent No. 3 herein, and also all further proceedings in the said PCR No. 82/2003 are liable to be quashed as prayed for in this petition in view of the fact that Sessions Case No. 114/2004 which was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by this very 3rd respondent Narayanappa in respect of murder of the same deceased Sonnappa came to be disposed of on merits after thorough trial and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 therein came to be acquitted ? (6) All the facts leading to the present petition as narrated by me supra are not in dispute and they are all borne out from the records. (7) Sri Basavaprabhu Patil, learned Sr. 1 and 2 therein came to be acquitted ? (6) All the facts leading to the present petition as narrated by me supra are not in dispute and they are all borne out from the records. (7) Sri Basavaprabhu Patil, learned Sr. Counsel for all the petitioners strongly contended that SC No. 114/2004 which was registered on the basis of the complaint given by this very 3rd respondent in respect of the death of his father, viz. the deceased Sonnappa, has been culminated in the acquittal of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 therein after full dressed trial and this 3rd respondent, though was examined in the said case as P.W. 20, did not say in his evidence anything against the present petitioners and therefore, he cannot be permitted to seek investigation in respect of the death of the same deceased Sonnappa by filing his PCR No. 82/2003 and hence, investigation against these petitioners in Crime No. 23/2003 of the said railway P.S. which came to be registered pursuant to the order of the learned JMFC u/S. 156(3) Cr. P.C. passed in the said PCR No. 82/2003 cannot be permitted to be continued. He further submitted that the allegations made by the 3rd respondent-complainant in his PCR No. 82/2003, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute any of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein and therefore further proceedings in PCR No. 82/2003 and investigation in the said Crime No. 23/2003 are liable to be quashed. (8) Per contra. Smt. Anuradha Urs vehemently contended that the petitioners had purchased properties from the deceased Sonnappa behind the back of the 3rd respondent and his brothers and therefore, Muniyappa. the elder brother of the 3rd respondent filed Civil Suit against the petitioners herein and therefore, these petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 conspired together and pursuant thereto these petitioners committed murder of the deceased apprehending that if he were to survive, he would depose in the said case against these petitioners and hence, the 3rd respondent herein filed his said private complaint against these petitioners and also respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 1 and 2 conspired together and pursuant thereto these petitioners committed murder of the deceased apprehending that if he were to survive, he would depose in the said case against these petitioners and hence, the 3rd respondent herein filed his said private complaint against these petitioners and also respondent Nos. 1 and 2. She further contended that when this 3rd respondent was examined in S.C. No. 114/2004 as P.W. 20, he clearly stated in his evidence therein that his complaint therein was falsely created by the police against his own brother and sister-in-law alleging that it was they who committed the murder of the deceased Sonnappa, despite the true fact being that he was murdered by these petitioners and therefore, FIR issued in Crime No. 23/2003 though amounts to a second FIR is maintainable in law and investigation therein cannot be quashed at the instance of these petitioners who are accused in the said FIR. (9) She further contended that though the complainant has not alleged in his private complaint in PCR No. 82/2003 in specific terms, the grounds on which he suspects that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 herein, along with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein conspired to commit murder of his father, the deceased Sonnappa, the documents which were annexed to his said complaint, copies whereof are produced in this petition along with the statement of objections, clearly establish that it was these petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 who committed murder of the deceased and not the said Muniyappa and Rathnamma who were tried in the said SC No. 114/2004. (10) It is not in dispute that this very third respondent namely Narayanappa filed his complaint before the police of Baiyyapanahali Railway Police Station in respect of the death of his father Sonnappa, who died on or about 6-8-2002, alleging that it was his (complainant's) brother Muniyappa and Rathnamma, the wife of the said Muniyappa, who committed murder of the deceased and. on the basis of the said complaint, a case in Crime No. 11/2002 came to be registered, investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was submitted against the said accused for the offences u/Ss. 302 and 201 of IPC. It is also not in dispute that both the said accused were tried in Sessions Case No. 114/ 2004 on the file of the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District. 302 and 201 of IPC. It is also not in dispute that both the said accused were tried in Sessions Case No. 114/ 2004 on the file of the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District. Bangalore and ultimately, the Trial Court, by its judgment and order of acquittal dated 22-1-2007, acquitted both the said accused of both the offences under Sections 302 and 201, IPC, and, this very third respondent-Narayanappa, being the complainant in the said Sessions case, came to be examined as P.W. 20 and he stated in his evidence in the said case that he did not know how his father died and his complaint therein was falsely created by the police and his signature was obtained thereon. (11) During the pendency of investigation in the said case in Cr. No. 11/2002 of Railway P.S. (Cr. No. 7/2002 of Attibele P.S), on the basis of the complaint that was filed by this third respondent-Narayanappa before the said Police, he filed PCR No. 82/2003 alleging against petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 herein that they murdered his father Sonnappa, and his said complaint (PCR No. 82/03) came to be referred by the learned Magistrate to the police concerned for investigation and accordingly, a case in Crime No. 23/03 in question came to be registered. It is the investigation in this Crime No. 23/03 which is sought to be quashed in this criminal petition. (12) Smt. Anuradha Urs, the learned counsel for 3rd respondent-Naryanappa, placing reliance on quite a number of decisions strongly contended that the second FIR issued by the said police in Crime No. 23/03 pursuant to the order dated 18-11-2003 passed in the said PCR No. 82/03 by the learned JMFC, Anekal is maintainable. (13) I have perused the entire averments in the complaint filed by the third respondent-Narayanappa in the said PCR No. 82/ 2003. I have not been able to find any specific averment made therein by him against all or any of the petitioners constituting any of the ingredients of any of the offences alleged against the petitioners therein in respect of the murder of deceased-Sonnappa. I have not been able to find any specific averment made therein by him against all or any of the petitioners constituting any of the ingredients of any of the offences alleged against the petitioners therein in respect of the murder of deceased-Sonnappa. (14) The allegations in the said complaint against the petitioners herein (accused therein) are : "these petitioners-accused dishonestly played fraud and in collusion with the Sub-Registrar, got the sale deeds executed by the deceased-Sonnappa by keeping him in their wrongful confinement and, or coming to know of the same, Muniyappa, the elder brother of the third respondent-complainant, filed civil suit against these petitioners-accused and therefore, these accused, apprehending that the deceased might reveal the fraud played on him by the accused, murdered him on 6-8-2002 on the railway track between the junction of Anekal and Hosur and the accused No. 5 fabricated false statement purported to have been made by the complainant implicating Muniyappa the brother of the complainant (third respondent herein) and Rathnamma, the wife of Muniyappa, as accused and foisted the said false case against them." (15) It is further alleged in the said complaint (at para-11) that the said Rathnamma and Muniyappa sent a telegram to Attibele Police Station as early as on 9-8-2002 intimating the said Police that these accused had murdered the deceased-Sonnappa on 6-8-2002. (16) Thus, it is quite clear from the above averments in the complaint in PCR No. 82/ 2003 filed by the third respondent-complainant that the complainant claims knowledge, as to these petitioners-accused committing murder of the deceased, through the telegram said to have been sent by Smt. Rathnamma and Muniyappa, who were accused in the said Sessions Case. (17) The learned counsel for the third respondent has produced copy of the judgment passed in the said S.C. No. 114/2004, wherein both Muniyappa and his wife Rathnamma, who were the only accused therein, came to be acquitted of both the offences under Sections 302 and 201, IPC alleged against them in respect of the murder of the deceased-Sonnappa. On perusal of the said judgment, it could be seen that the accused No. 2 Rathnamma did not say anything in her statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. in the said Sessions Case about she sending her telegram to the police of Attibele P.S. intimating them that the petitioners herein committed the murder of the deceased Sonnappa. On perusal of the said judgment, it could be seen that the accused No. 2 Rathnamma did not say anything in her statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. in the said Sessions Case about she sending her telegram to the police of Attibele P.S. intimating them that the petitioners herein committed the murder of the deceased Sonnappa. If she had knowledge that these petitioners-accused had committed murder of the deceased, nothing prevented her from disclosing the same before the Trial Court in the said case while her statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. was recorded. (18) Further, copy of deposition of the third respondent herein, recorded in the said case, as P.W. 20, is also produced by the learned counsel for the third respondent. On perusal of the said deposition, it could be seen that he has only stated therein that 'he did not know how his deceased father Sonnappa died'. It is pertinent to note that as on the date of recording of his said evidence, he (3rd respondent) had already filed his present PCR No. 82/03. Therefore, if it were to be so that by that time he was knowing, either through his brother-Muniyappa or his sister-in-law Rathnamma (who were accused in the said case), that it was these petitioners-accused, who committed the murder of his deceased father, nothing prevented him from deposing anything against these petitioners and also from producing the relevant documents in respect of the murder of the deceased. (19) As could be seen from the complaint in PCR No. 82/2003, the averments therein do not disclose any fact constituting any of the offences punishable under Sections 119, 219, 202, 212, 213, 218, 221, 222 and 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC alleged against these petitioners-accused. Besides this, Smt. Anuradha Urs, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-complainant has not been able to show me in the said complaint, the averments constituting any of these offences. Besides this, Smt. Anuradha Urs, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-complainant has not been able to show me in the said complaint, the averments constituting any of these offences. However, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharon Michael v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 375 : (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 688), she contended that though there is no specific allegation made against the petitioners in the complaint in PCR No. 82/2003 as to the acts committed by them constituting the offences alleged against them, in respect of the murder of the deceased, the documents annexed to the said complaint disclose the commission of the said offences by the petitioners and the said documents are to be considered. (20) One of the said documents said to have been annexed to the said complaint is, a copy of the telegram (Doc. No. 11 in the List) said to have been sent by Muniyappa to the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. It is stated in the said telegram that he has knowledge that the deceased-Sonnappa was murdered by K. Sampangi, Appaji Gowda, Srinivas, Kempaiah and Raghu (petitioners herein) and others claiming to be Dalit activities and extortionists. It is further stated therein that the said Muniyappa had been visiting Attibele Police Station, but the police were refusing to receive his complaint and therefore, he requested the Superintendent of Police to register a case of murder against the said persons. If this Muniyappa, who was one of the accused in the Sessions Case No. 114/2004, was fully aware that the deceased was murdered by these petitioners, nothing prevented him from disclosing the same in the said case in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and no explanation whatsoever is given by the third respondent-complainant herein as to why the said Muniyappa could not do so, and also as to why the complainant himself did not say anything against these petitioners when he was examined in the said case as P.W. 20. (21) Document Nos. 1 to 4 annexed to the complaint in PCR No. 82/03 are the copies of telegrams said to have been sent by Smt. Rathnamma, the sister-in-law of the third respondent-complainant, Sri C. V. Sudheendra, the learned Advocate representing Muniyappa and the complainant Narayanappa. (21) Document Nos. 1 to 4 annexed to the complaint in PCR No. 82/03 are the copies of telegrams said to have been sent by Smt. Rathnamma, the sister-in-law of the third respondent-complainant, Sri C. V. Sudheendra, the learned Advocate representing Muniyappa and the complainant Narayanappa. It is pertinent to note that all these telegrams were sent during the year 1998 i.e. more than three years prior to the death of the deceased. Therefore, these documents do not in any way help the complainant to prima facie establish the case of murder of the deceased against the petitioners herein. Further, document No. 5 is a copy of the plaint in the original suit that was filed by the Muniyappa in the year 1999 against the petitioners herein. Document Nos. 6 and 7 are the copies of photographs. Document No. 8 is the copy of the complaint in PCR No. 54/98 that was filed by the present complainant-Narayanappa against the petitioners herein. Document No. 9 is the caveat petition filed in the year 1998 by the deceased-Sonnappa against the present complainant-Naryanappa, his brother-Muniyappa, Rathnamma w/o of Muniyappa and some others. Document No. 10 is the copy of the order sheet in C.C. No. 785/99 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Anekal. Document No. 11 is the telegram said to have been sent by Muniyappa to the Superintendent of Police which is already referred to by me supra. (22) Suffice it to say that all the said document Nos. 1 to 10 said to have been annexed to the complaint in PCR No. 82/03 pertain to the years 1998, 1999 i.e. more than three years prior to the death of the deceased. Therefore, none of these documents is of any help to the complainant to show that it was these petitioners who conspired together and murdered the deceased-Sonnappa. (23) Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 : ( AIR 2008 SC 907 ) the learned counsel for the third respondent-complainant contended that the Magistrate can order a proper investigation and take suitable steps for proper investigation by invoking the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. In the said case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the son of the appellant was found dead on 23-8-2003 and a report was submitted on 29-8-2003 to the effect that the death of the deceased was due to accident or suicide but not homicidal one and therefore the appellant therein, aggrieved by the said report, approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition and the said writ petition was dismissed. On those facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at para Nos. 11 and 17 as under: 11. "In this connection we would like to State that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154, Cr. P.C. then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr. P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation ensure a proper investigation." 17. "In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3), Cr. Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation." (24) Suffice it to say that the above observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the third respondent-complainant, having filed his complaint before the police concerned against his own brother and sister-in-law alleging therein that they committed murder of the deceased Sonnappa, could not maintain, during the pendency of investigation on his first complaint, his subsequent private complaint (82/ 03), in respect of the same incident of murder of the deceased, against the present petitioners alleging that it was not his brother and sister-in-law who committed the murder of the deceased, but it was these petitioners who did so. (25) Placing reliance on another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, reported in 1999 CriLJ 1833: ( AIR 1999 SC 1216 ), the learned counsel for the third respondent-complainant contended that if factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. On careful reading of the said judgment, it could be seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at para-10 therein that the facts narrated in the complaint therein revealed the commission of offence under Section 415 of IPC. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that if factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. It is further observed at para 9 therein that for quashing an FIR (a step which is permitted only in extremely rare cases) the information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. It is further observed at para 9 therein that for quashing an FIR (a step which is permitted only in extremely rare cases) the information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (26) Even following the above observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case, (1999 Cri LJ 1833 : ( AIR 1999 SC 1216 ), I am of the considered opinion that the averments in the complaint (in PCR 82/ 03) of the third respondent-complainant do not disclose even least minimum facts constituting any of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein. Therefore, the above said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not support the case of the 3rd respondent-complainant. (27) The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-complainant has cited two more decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 AIR SCW 5017 : ( AIR 2004 SC 4320 ) (Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash) and AIR 2008 SC 202 (Bank of Rajasthan v. Keshav Bangur). In first of these two decisions, the police had refused to register counter-complaint and therefore, the Supreme Court held that the Magistrate can direct police, at any stage, to register the counter-complaint and investigate the same and the said complaint is not hit by Section 162 of Cr. P.C. In second of the said decisions, there were two informations to the police in respect of the same incident and the said FIRs were filed by the rival parties. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the same investigating agency (CBI) could carry out investigation under both the FIRs as both of them were valid. In the instant case, it is not that two complaints have been filed by two different persons rival to each other, in respect of the same incident of the murder of the deceased. But the very same complainant i.e. third respondent herein filed his first complaint before the police in respect of the murder of the deceased Sonnappa and himself filed his subsequent Private Complaint (PCR No. 82/03) before the learned Magistrate against altogether different accused i.e. petitioners herein, in respect of the same incident of murder of the said deceased, during the pendency of the investigation in the case that was registered on the basis of his earlier complaint. This being so, the said two decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court are totally inapplicable to the facts of the present case. (28) The learned counsel for third respondent has cited another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Chaitanyakumar, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1930 . The appellant's counsel in the said case had filed a complaint before the police concerned against the first respondent therein, arraying him as accused No. 2 for the offences under Sections 420, 408 r/w Section 34 of IPC and, on the basis of the same, a crime was registered by the police concerned. Nine months thereafter, the investigating officer arrived at the conclusion that the allegations found in the complaint constituted internal dispute of the company and as such, there was no evidence against the accused therein. However, subsequently, under the direction of the Superintendent of Police, further investigation was proceeded with in respect of the said offences. At that stage, accused No. 2 filed petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. seeking quashing of the investigation carried in pursuance of the crime registered against him by the said police. The High Court allowed the said application. Therefore, the complainant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On those facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at Para No. 4 of its judgment that when further investigation is permissible under Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code the High Court was not justified in quashing the investigation which came to be proceeded with pursuant to the directions of the Superintendent of Police. Suffice it to say that the said facts in the said case cannot be equated with the facts in the instant case. Therefore, the said decision is totally inapplicable to the facts of the present case. (29) Placing reliance on yet another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Ashoka v. N. L. Chandrashekar, reported in (2009) 2 SCC (Criminal) 730: (2009 (4) AIR Kar R 427), the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent contended that the High Court cannot quash the complaint, if allegations therein prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed at para 14 of the said judgment as under: "14. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed at para 14 of the said judgment as under: "14. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code may quash a criminal proceeding inter alia in the event the allegations made in the complaint petition even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence. Some of the principles which would be attracted for invoking the said jurisdiction have been laid down in Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. ( AIR 2006 SC 2780 ) (para 9) are (SCC p. 748 para 12) : "(1) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the Court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not." (30) Even applying the above observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, it could be seen that facts constituting even a single ingredient of any of the offences alleged against these petitioners are not alleged by the complainant in his complaint in PCR No. 82/2003. Therefore, the above observations, instead of supporting the case of the complainant, support the case of petitioners herein. Likewise, the observations of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja. reported in AIR 2003 SC 2612 relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent that 'where the allegations made in FIR or complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted, in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused, the High Court is justified in quashing the proceedings' supports the case of the petitioners herein rather than supporting the case of the third respondent-complainant. Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed at para 9 of its judgment in the said case as under : "9. Section 482, Cr. P.C. saves inherent powers of the High Court and such a power can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The power can, therefore, be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings. Section 482, Cr. P.C. saves inherent powers of the High Court and such a power can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The power can, therefore, be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings. The grounds on which the prosecution initiated against an accused can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of power conferred by Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been settled by a catena of decisions of this Court rendered in R. P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 ; Madhu Limaye v. State, AIR 1978 SC 47 ; Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan, AIR 1983 SC 67 ; Raj Kapoor v. State, AIR 1980 SC 258 . The matter was examined in considerable detail in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 and after review of practically all the earlier decisions, the Court in para 108 of the Reports laid down the grounds on which power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings and basically they are (1) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, (2) where the un-contraverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, (3) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure or the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceedings. But this power has to be exercised in a rare case and with great circumspection. There are some statutes which create a bar on the power of the Court in taking cognizance of an offence in absence of a sanction by the competent authority like Section 6 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 or Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Similar provision is contained in Section 196, Cr. P.C. which mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of the offences enumerated in the Section except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government. Section 197, Cr. Similar provision is contained in Section 196, Cr. P.C. which mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of the offences enumerated in the Section except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government. Section 197, Cr. P.C. also creates an embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by any person who is or was a Judge or a Magistrate or a Public Servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government. But the proceedings in the present case have not been quashed on any one of the above mentioned grounds. The High Court has not examined the nature of the allegations made in the FIR or the evidence by which the prosecution seeks to establish the charge against the accused during the trial. There is not even a whisper in the impugned order of the High Court that the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence. Similarly, there is no reference to any statutory bar like want of valid sanction etc. to the taking of the cognizance of the offence. In fact the respondent-Prakash Hinduja is not public servant and consequently no sanction is required from any authority for his prosecution. The only ground on which the High Court has proceeded and has quashed the cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge and all consequential proceedings is that the CBI had filed the charge-sheet without placing the same before the CVC and, therefore, an illegality had been committed in the course of investigation which entitled the High Court to quash the cognizance taken by the Special Judge and all proceedings of the case." (31) The learned counsel for the third respondent-complainant has also cited the following decisions: (1) 2009 AIR SCW 60: ( AIR 2009 SC 984 ) (Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab with J. P. Singla v. State of Punjab). (2) (2008) 5 SCC 730 : (2008 (4) AIR Kar R 110) (B. Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka). (3) AIR 2000 SC 2988 (State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar etc. etc. (4) AIR 2001 SC 1436 (Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab). (5) 1976 CriLJ 1361: AIR 1976 SC 1672 (Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. Narayana Reddy). (6) 1980 CriLJ 1280: ( AIR 1981 SC 22 ) (Supreme Court) (State of Maharashtra v. Sk. (3) AIR 2000 SC 2988 (State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar etc. etc. (4) AIR 2001 SC 1436 (Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab). (5) 1976 CriLJ 1361: AIR 1976 SC 1672 (Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. Narayana Reddy). (6) 1980 CriLJ 1280: ( AIR 1981 SC 22 ) (Supreme Court) (State of Maharashtra v. Sk. Bannu and Shankar). (7) AIR 1997 SC 3104 (Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar). (8) 2008 (3) SCC 753 : (2008 (2) AIR Kar R 415) (Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka). (9) 2009 (3) SCC 375 : (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 688) (Sharon Michael v. State of Tamil Nadu). (32) Suffice it to say that none of the above said decisions could be applied to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel appearing for third respondent-complainant by producing all the above said decisions has made a very unsuccessful attempt to substantiate her contentions. (33) Sri. Basava Prabhu Patil, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners herein, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. T. Antony v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 : ( AIR 2001 SC 2637 ) strongly contended that the second FIR issued in Crime No. 23/2003 by the police of Balappanahalli Railway P.S. pursuant to the order dated 18-11-2003 passed in PCR No. 82/2003 by the learned JMFC Anekal could not be maintained, in view of the fact that the same has been filed by this third respondent, who had filed his earlier complaint in Crime No. 11/2002 of the said Railway P.S. (which subsequently came to be numbered as Crime No. 9/2002 of Attibele P.S. on being transferred from Railway P.S. of Attibele P.S) in respect of the same incident of death of the same deceased Sonnappa. (34) The facts in the said case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were: "When a Minister was to inaugurate the evening branch of a Co-operative bank at Kannur in the State of Kerala, two incidents occurred at two different places and, during the said incidents, under the orders of the Executive Magistrate and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the police did lathi charge and they also fired and consequently, five persons died and several persons suffered injuries. Two crimes came to be registered in respect of the said incidents. Two crimes came to be registered in respect of the said incidents. Crime No. 353/1994 in respect of the incident at one place for the offences under Sections 143, 148, 332, 353, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and also for the offences under Explosive Substances Act, against eight named and many other unidentified persons belonging to a political party. In respect of the incident that occurred at another place, Crime No. 354/1994 came to be registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 and 427 read with 149 of IPC and also for the offences under other enactments. The said case had been registered against unidentified persons belonging to the same political party. Both the said crimes were registered on the very day of incidents. While the investigations on the basis of the FIRs in the said two cases were pending, the Enquiry Commission, which was appointed to probe into the matter, submitted its report to the Government holding the Former Minister, Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Executive Magistrate, responsible for the police firing and consequent death of five persons and injuries to many others and the said report was accepted by the Government and, as a form of action, the Government directed that the legal action be taken against those responsible officials on the basis of the findings of the said Commission. Therefore, the Inspector General of Police issued direction to the SHO to register a case under appropriate sections. On that information, the Deputy Superintendent of Police registered Crime No. 268/1997 for the offences under Section 302 of IPC arraying the said Former Minister, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Executive Magistrate as accused Nos. 1 to 3 respectively. The cases that were registered in Crime No. 353 and 354 of 1994 came to be closed as false and undetected after the said Case in Crime No. 268/1997 was registered. Therefore, the accused therein filed writ petition before the High Court seeking quashing of FIR in Crime No. 268/1997. The Division Bench of the High Court ordered quashing of FIR in the said Crime Number as against ASP and directed fresh investigation by State Police. Therefore, the other accused moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court." (35) On the above facts, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at Para Nos. 15, 16, 20 and 22 as under: "15. The Division Bench of the High Court ordered quashing of FIR in the said Crime Number as against ASP and directed fresh investigation by State Police. Therefore, the other accused moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court." (35) On the above facts, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at Para Nos. 15, 16, 20 and 22 as under: "15. On the contentions, four points arise for determination : (i) whether registration of a fresh case, Crime No. 268 of 1997, Kuthuparamba Police Station on the basis of the letter of the DGP dated 2-7-1997 which is in the nature of the second FIR under Section 154, Cr. P.C. is valid and it can form the basis of a fresh investigation : (ii) whether the appellants in Appeals Nos. 689 and 4066-of 2001 (arising out of SLPs (Cri) Nos. 1522 and 8840 of 2000) and the respondent in Appeals Nos. 690-91 of 2001 (arising out of SLPs (Cri) No. 2724-25 of 2000) have otherwise made out a case for quashing of proceedings in Crime No. 268 of 1997, Kuthuparamba Police Station : (iii) what is the effect of the report of Shri K. Padmanabhan Commission of Inquiry; and (iv) whether the facts and the circumstances of the case justify a fresh investigation by CBI. 16. As Points (i) and (ii) are interconnected, it will be convenient to deal with them together. Inasmuch as the germane question relates to registration of an FIR, we may usefully refer to Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C) which reads as under: "154. Information in cognizable cases.-(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in-charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant, and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in-charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in-charge of the police station in relation to that offence." 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, Cr. P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Sections 154, Cr. P.C. 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 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 repotted 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 Section 173, Cr. P.C. 22. On a perusal of the judgment of this Court in M. Krishna v. State of Karnataka ( AIR 1999 SC 1765 ) we do not find anything contra to what is stated above. The case is distinguishable on facts of that case. P.C. 22. On a perusal of the judgment of this Court in M. Krishna v. State of Karnataka ( AIR 1999 SC 1765 ) we do not find anything contra to what is stated above. The case is distinguishable on facts of that case. In the case on hand the second FIR is filed in respect of the same incident and on the same facts after about three years." (36) Thus, it is clear from careful reading of the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. T. Antony's case ( AIR 2001 SC 2637 ) that registration of fresh case in Crime No. 268/1997 therein on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Commission, despite registration of case in Crime Nos. 353 and 354/1994 in respect of the said incidents, was held to be not maintainable. In the present case also, the third respondent-complainant filed his two complaints, one before the police immediately after the occurrence of the incident of murder of the deceased and another in PCR No. 82/2003, about one year three months after filing of his said complaint before the police and that too, when the investigation on his earlier complaint was still in progress. When the investigation of the case registered on his own complaint was pending in Crime No. 9/2002 of Attibele P.S., third respondent, being complainant-information therein, could have demanded the recording of his further statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. by the Investigating Officer or he could have approached the learned Magistrate seeking direction to the Investigating Officer to record his further statement if his request for recording such statement was rejected by the concerned Investigating Officer. He did not choose to do so. Besides this, he did not say anything against the petitioners herein when he was examined as P.W. 20 in the Sessions case No. 114/2004 wherein charge-sheet was submitted by the Police after investigation in Crime No. 9/2002 of Attibele P.S. which had been registered on the basis of his said earlier complaint before the police. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that filing of the said private complaint by the third respondent is clear abuse of the process of law. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that filing of the said private complaint by the third respondent is clear abuse of the process of law. (37) As on this date, the said Sessions Case has already been disposed of and the accused therein have been acquitted of both the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC with which they were charged for the alleged murder of the deceased Sonnappa. Under these circumstances if the investigation in Crime No. 23/2003 of Baiyyappanahalli Railway Police Station which came to be registered pursuant to the order dated 18-11-2003 passed in PCR No. 82/2003 filed by the 3rd respondent herein is allowed to be proceeded with, virtually it amounts to reinvestigation of the case in respect of murder of the deceased Sonnappa which is not permissible under law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mithabhai Pachabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 332 : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1658). It is observed in the said case as under : "D. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -S. 173 -Reinvestigation Permissibility -Further investigation and reinvestigation, distinguished -Held, both stand on different footing -A distinction exists between a reinvestigation and further investigation -Supreme Court or High Court can direct State to get an offence investigated and/or further investigated -However, reinvestigation being forbidden in law, no superior Court would ordinarily issue direction of reinvestigation -Constitution of India -Arts. 32 and 226 -Interference in criminal matters -Investigation -Scope of power with respect to". (38) Following the above observation' am of the considered opinion that investigation in Cr. No. 23/03 of the said Railway P.S. cannot be allowed to be continued as it amounts to reinvestigation which is not permissible in law. (39) Further, Sri. Basava Prabhu Patil, the learned senior counsel has also relied on the decision in the case of B.A. Srinivasa Gupta v. State of Karnataka by Superintendent of Police, reported in ILR 2002 Kar 3185: (2002 AIR Kant HCR 2822). I need not discuss in detail the principles laid down in the said judgment. (40) For the reasons aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. I need not discuss in detail the principles laid down in the said judgment. (40) For the reasons aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. All proceedings in PCR No. 82/2003 on the file of the learned JMFC, Anekal, Bangalore Rural District and also the investigation in Crime No. 23/2003 of Baiayyappanahalli Railway P.S. which came to be registered pursuant to the order dated 18-11-2003 passed in PCR No. 82/2003 that was filed by the third respondent herein are hereby quashed. The respondent No. 3 Narayanappa shall pay cost of Rs. 2,000/-to each of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4. Petition allowed.