ORDER 1. Crl. P No.2870 of 2013 is filed under Section 482 Cr. PC by the petitioner to quash the entire proceedings in Cr.No.16 of 2013 of Police Station, Biccavole, East Godavari District and Crl. P No.2357 of 2013 is filed under Section 482 Cr. PC by the petitioner to quash the entire proceedings in Cr.No.17 of 2013 of Police Station, Biccavole, East Godavari District on the ground that multiple FIRs are not permissible in law in respect of the same incident. 2. I have heard Sri. T. Bali Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/A1 and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. 3. The brief facts necessary for considering these two quash petitions may be stated as follows: 4. The Collector, East Godavari District conducted a public meeting in the premises of K.P.R. Fertilizers situate on the outskirts of Balabhadrapuram, East Godavari District to gather public opinion for establishing a power plant on the outskirts of Balabhadrapuram Village. The villagers of Balabhadrapuram, Balvaram Singampalli, Nallamilli and other surrounding villages attended the meeting and started expressing their opinion as to whether the power plant can be established on the outskirts of Balabhadrapuram or not. While so, it is said that some individuals including the petitioner by raising their protest for establishing the power plant resorted to committing violent acts by hurling stones and chappals at the Collector and other officials present at the meeting by raising slogans to stop the establishment of the power plant, forcibly rushed towards Collector and other officials who were organizing the meeting, resorted to assault the revenue and other officials and also the police at various places in the vicinity of the meeting premises. They also damaged the official vehicles by pelting stones, damaged the tents, furniture, and barricades. The unique feature of the FIRs is that in the vicinity of the meeting premises several incidents took place against the police, revenue officials as well as private individuals by different accused persons. Basing on the report lodged by one Tadipudi Abbai, V.R.O. at 2 p.m., on 6.2.2013, a case in Crime No.15 of 2013 was registered against the petitioner and some others. Basing on the report lodged by Mangadevi, Woman Police Constable at 3 p.m., on 6.2.2013, a case in Crime No.16 of 2013 was registered. Basing on the report lodged by one Tadipudi Abbai, V.R.O. at 2 p.m., on 6.2.2013, a case in Crime No.15 of 2013 was registered against the petitioner and some others. Basing on the report lodged by Mangadevi, Woman Police Constable at 3 p.m., on 6.2.2013, a case in Crime No.16 of 2013 was registered. Basing on the report lodged by D. Sekhar, a constable in Anti Naxalite Special Force at Kakinada on 6.2.2013 at 4 p.m., a case in Crime No. 17 of 2013 was registered against the petitioner and 30 others. Basing on the report lodged by M Johnsi Kumar, an agriculturist at 6 a.m., on 7.2.2013 a case in Crime No.18 of 2013 was registered against two individuals. Basing on the report of P. Sujatha lodged at 7 a.m., on 7.2.2013 a case in Crime No.20 of 2013 was registered against five individuals. All the cases were registered in the Police Station, Biccavole, East Godavari District. 5. As can be seen from the versions contained in the aforesaid FIRs, the offences were allegedly committed in protest of establishing the power plant on the outskirts of village Balabhadrapuram in East Godavari District. Though the offences were committed in the vicinity of the meeting premises, they were committed at different places by different accused against the different individuals. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime Nos. 15, 16 and 17 of 2013. 6. Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that all the incidents arose in the course of the same transaction and in relation to the common cause of raising the protest against establishing a thern1al power plant at Balabhadrapuram Village, registering different FIRs against the petitioner and others is impern1issible in law and it would jeopardize the rights of the petitioner and other accused for obtaining bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State would submit that since the offences committed are different and distinct by different accused against different individuals, there is no sameness in respect of the incidents and therefore, filing of different FIRs is permissible. 8. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State would submit that since the offences committed are different and distinct by different accused against different individuals, there is no sameness in respect of the incidents and therefore, filing of different FIRs is permissible. 8. In support of his contention that registering different FIRs is abuse of process of law and it would infringe the rights of the accused, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and others, 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 276 (SC) = (2001) 6 SCC 181 , the Supreme Court held as follows: "It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more than one piece of information is 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 Cr. PC. All other information 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 a police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 Cr. PC. 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 Cr. PC." The Supreme Court further held: "That the right of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is a statutory right over which the Court does not possess any supervisory jurisdiction under Cr. P.C. This plenary power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence is, however, not unlimited. It is subject to certain well-recognized limitations. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the Court. P.C. This plenary power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence is, however, not unlimited. It is subject to certain well-recognized limitations. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the Court. The sweeping investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) Cr. PC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 Cr. PC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. A case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the san1e transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) Cr. PC has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr. PC or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court in an appropriate case can interdict the investigation to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 9. Basing on the above referred judgment, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that though the different cognizable offences have been allegedly committed after registering the first FIR, the officer-in-charge of the police station shall not register successive FIRs, though he may continue the investigation basing on the information he subsequently received as he can file a final report after completing entire investigation basing on the entire information as provided for under Sections 169 to 173 Cr. P.C. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that in the present case, the situation is different from that of the situation in the case before the Supreme Court and according to him, in the instant case, though the incidents arose out of a common cause, they are not in respect of the same transaction and the incidents complained of are different and distinct constituting separate cognizable offences and therefore, registering different FIRs is permissible in law. In support of his contention, he relied on the following judgments: (1) Babu Bhai vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 866 (SC) = (2010) 12 SCC 254 , wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: "In case of a subsequent FIR, the Court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counterclaim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted." 11. The Supreme Court further clarified that "Court's interference with investigation warranted only in extraordinary or exceptional cases of gross abuse of power and failure of justice. It is further held that not only fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 ad 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. 12. While rendering the judgment in Babu Bahi's case (supra), the Supreme Court referred the judgment in Babu Bhai's case (supra) and reviewed various other judgments of the Apex Court on the subject. The Supreme Court referred to Ramesh Chandra Nandlal Parikh vs. State of Gujarat, (2006) 1 SCC 732 , wherein the Supreme Court reconsidered the earlier judgments on the subject including T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala (supra) and held that in case the FIRs are not in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences nor are they alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the san1e occurrence as the one alleged in the first FIR, there is no prohibition in accepting the second FIR. 13. 13. We have to examine the fact situation of the case in hand in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited judgments. In the instant case, though the incidents involving commission of different cognizable offences might have arisen out of the same cause viz., in protest of establishing a Thermal Power Project in Balabhadrapuram, the incidents include hurling of stones and chappals at the Collector and the revenue officials who were present on the stage, they also include damaging the Government vehicles causing hurt to the police personnel restraining the Government officials from discharging their official functions and also assaulting two women who are private individuals. In the incidents, some police constables were also said to be injured. The incidents as they would appear to me do not seem to have arisen out of the same transaction though might have arisen out of the same grievance or same cause. They occurred in the vicinity of the meeting place but at different places. The offences were allegedly committed by different accused though some of the accused are common in some crimes. In Babu Bhai's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that after completing the test of sameness to the facts of the case, if the Court arrives at the conclusion that if the incidents are two or more, part of the same transaction and if the version in the second FIR is different and if the FIRs are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In the instant case, as I have already said, the incidents might have arisen out of the same cause i.e., in protest of establishing the power plant, they are different constituting different cognizable offences allegedly committed by different individuals. Under these circumstances, applying the ratio laid down in Babu Bhai's case (supra), I am of the considered view that different and distinct FIRs are permissible in the instant case. Therefore, the petitioner/accused No.1 cannot complain that his right to obtain bail has been jeopardized by registering different and district FIRs, and it cannot be said that by registering the different and distinct FIRs, there is no fair investigation infringing the rights of petitioner/A1. Therefore, the petitioner/accused No.1 cannot complain that his right to obtain bail has been jeopardized by registering different and district FIRs, and it cannot be said that by registering the different and distinct FIRs, there is no fair investigation infringing the rights of petitioner/A1. In view of the offences complained of, it is not possible for me to accede to the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that registering the different and distinct FIRs is not permissible in law. 14. For the foregoing reasons, both the criminal petitions are dismissed.