ORDER By the Court.- The order dated 15/06/2010, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Telco (Govindpur) P.S. Case No. 89 of 2006 (G.R. No. 927 of 2006), whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 120B of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners and also the order dated 25/07/2012, under which charges have been framed under the aforesaid offences, are being sought to be quashed on the ground that for the said allegation earlier also a first information report was lodged in which upon submission of the charge sheet, cognizance of the offence has been taken and the petitioners have been put on trial. 2. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that earlier one Satyawati Vig, who claimed herself to be the Chairman of the Society namely Vig Educational & Cultural Society, Jamshedpur, lodged a case alleging therein that petitioner No. 1, the Secretary of the Society and his wife petitioner No.2 being the Principal of Vig English School, have misappropriated huge amount. Upon such allegation, case was registered as Telco (Govindpur) P.S. Case No. 254 0f 2005 under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon submission of the charge sheet, when cognizance was taken, the petitioners were put on trial. Subsequently, the informant Hareram Singh claiming to be the Secretary of the Society, lodged a complaint case bearing C1 Case No. 474 of 2006, alleging therein that petitioner No.1, the Ex-Secretary of the Society and also his wife petitioner No.2, the Principal of the Vig English School, in connivance with the other accused persons, i.e. Ex-Assistant Secretary. Officiating Principal of the School, Accountant and the Teacher In-charge of the School, misappropriated a sum of Rs. 73,48,435/- during the year 2006-07. That apart a sum of Rs. 6,73,48,435/- have also been misappropriated. The said complaint was sent before the concerned police station for its institution and investigation. Thereupon, the case was registered as Telco (Govindpur) P.S. Case No. 89 of 2006 under Sections 406, 408, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 73,48,435/- during the year 2006-07. That apart a sum of Rs. 6,73,48,435/- have also been misappropriated. The said complaint was sent before the concerned police station for its institution and investigation. Thereupon, the case was registered as Telco (Govindpur) P.S. Case No. 89 of 2006 under Sections 406, 408, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon investigation, the police submitted charge sheet under which the cognizance of the offences as aforesaid, was taken and even the charges have been framed against the petitioners and, thereby, the petitioners have been put to trial for the allegations, which are also the subject matter of the trial of earlier case, i.e. Telco (Govindpur) P.S. Case No. 254 of 2005 and, thereby, the petitioners are being vexed twice for the same allegation, which is against the mandate of the Constitution and also against the decisions rendered in the cases of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & others, 2001 (3) East Cr C 261 (SC) : (2001) 6 SCC 181 ; Babubahai v. State of Gujrat and others, (2010) 12 SCC 254 . Under the situation, the impugned orders taking cognizance of the offence and also framing of the charges in Telco (Govindpur) P.S Case No. 89 of 2006 (G.R. No. 927/2006), are fit to be set aside. 3. As against this, Mr. S.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2, submits that earlier the then Chairman of Vig Educational & Cultural Society, Chotagovindpur, Jamshedpur, has lodged the case, which was registered as Telco (Govindpur) P.S. Case No. 254 of 2005, for misappropriation of the amount of the Society. The relevant period of misappropriation of the amount in that case was up to the year 2005, whereas the instant case has been lodged in compliance of the direction of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Dalbhum, Jamshedpur, given in the report not only against these two petitioners, but also against other 8 accuse persons, who, in connivance with each other, had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 73,48,435/- out of the total amount of Rs. 78,98,435/- during the academic Sessions of 2006 and 2007. The total amount, which was found to have been misappropriated was mentioned in the FIR as Rs. 6,73,48,435/-. Thus, it was submitted that when the amount of defalcation and also the period of defalcation as well as the persons, who had not been made accused earlier. 78,98,435/- during the academic Sessions of 2006 and 2007. The total amount, which was found to have been misappropriated was mentioned in the FIR as Rs. 6,73,48,435/-. Thus, it was submitted that when the amount of defalcation and also the period of defalcation as well as the persons, who had not been made accused earlier. have been made accused in the instance case, it cannot be said that both the cases have been lodged on the same and similar allegations and, thereby, the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the order taking cognizance and also the order framing charges, never appears to be tenable. In this regard, learned counsel has referred to the decisions rendered in the cases of M. Krishna v. State of Karnataka, 1999 (2) Supreme 222 : (1999) 3 SCC 247 ; Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh v. State of Gujrat & Anr., (2006) 1 SCC 732 . Thus, it was submitted that where two different and distinct offences are committed by different persons there never happens to be commonality of transaction between the two, the question of quashing of the order taking cognizance and also the order framing charges in the subsequent case does not arise as the ratio laid down in the cases, referred to on behalf of the petitioners, are never applicable in the instant case. 4. In the context of the submissions, one needs to take notice of the decision rendered in a case of T.T. Antony (supra), wherein their Lordships had held as under :- "19. The scheme of Cr PC is that an officer in charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157, Cr PC 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 the evidence collected, he has' to form an opinion under Section 169 or 170, Cr PC, as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(2), Cr PC. On completion of investigation and on the basis of the evidence collected, he has' to form an opinion under Section 169 or 170, Cr PC, as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(2), Cr PC. However, even after filing such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR; he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the Court, and where during further investigation 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 PC. 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 PC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154, Cr PC. 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 Section 173 Cr PC. 27. 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. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173, Cr PC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the Court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173, Cr PC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the Court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh' 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. In our view 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 same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482, Cr PC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution." 5. Same principle has been laid down in a case of Babubhai v. State of Gujrat (supra). Thus, it is evident that when on the same and similar allegation, two FIRs are lodged, the FIR lodged at later point of time cannot be maintained. But, here in the instant case, as has been demonstrated on behalf of O.P. No.2, it does appear that the first FIR was lodged with respect to commission of the offence of misappropriation of the amount relates to the period up to 2005, whereas second FIR, which has been lodged, pertains to misappropriation of the amount for the years 2006-2007. That apart, it has also been alleged that the accused persons misappropriated a sum of rupees crores and odd. Further, I do find that in the first case only these two petitioners have been made accused, whereas in other case, persons, including these two petitioners, have been made accused and the amplitude of conspiracy seems to be wider than the earlier case. Further, I do find that in the first case only these two petitioners have been made accused, whereas in other case, persons, including these two petitioners, have been made accused and the amplitude of conspiracy seems to be wider than the earlier case. Therefore, there does not appear to be commonality of transaction between the two. In such situation, the ratio laid down in a case of T.T. Antony and other cases, referred to on behalf of the petitioners, are not applicable in the instant case. 6. At this stage, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the subsequent FIR cannot be prohibited on the ground that some other FIR has been filed against the petitioner in respect of other allegations filed against the petitioner. Further, I may refer to a case of M. Krishna (supra), wherein Honble Supreme Court took a view that even where the article of charge was similar but for a different period, there was nothing in the Code to debar registration of the second FIR. Their Lordships did opine that the FIR was registered for an offence under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act related to the period 1.8.1978 to 1.4.1989 and the investigation culminated into filing of a report which was accepted by the Court. The Second FIR and subsequent proceedings related to a later period which was 1st August, 1978 to 25th July, 1979 under similar charges. Even then it was held that there was no provision which debar the filing of a subsequent FIR. 7. Under the circumstances, the order taking cognizance and also the order framing charges, never warrants to be quashed. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application and, hence, it is dismissed. Application dismissed.