JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 has been filed for quashing FIR No. 54/2013 registered at Police Station Sambhar, Distt. Jaipur Rural for offence under Section 143, 283 IPC. 2. The contention of the present petitioners is that on the same allegations, FIR No. 53/2013 has been registered and it is under investigation. On the same facts, this second FIR has been lodged and this is settled proposition of law that a second FIR cannot be allowed to be continued, hence the impugned FIR be quashed.Per contra, the contention of the Public Prosecutor is that both FIRs are on different grounds and Investigation Officer, Mr. Laptmi Kant Sharma, Cl SHO, Sambhar Lake, Jaipur Gramin, is also present in person. 3. A bare reading of two FIR of 53/2013 and 54/2013 reveals that it contains that present petitioners on 29.3.2013 after 12.45 PM till 2.20 PM have obstructed the public path. The contention of the Public Prosecutor is that they have obstructed the public path on two spots, hence two FIRs have been lodged, is not acceptable. In series of sequence, if on two places both have been blocked, it will be treated a series of act for which only one FIR is competent and counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. The Central Bureau of Investigation, JT 2013 (4) SC 333 , wherein it was held that second FIR is impermissible: "This Court has consistently laid down the law on the issue interpreting the Code, that a second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution." 4. Further reliance has been placed on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181 wherein it was held: "The scheme of the Cr.P.C. is that an officer in charge of a Police Station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 of Cr.P.C. 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 evidence collected he has to form opinion under Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forward his report to the concerned Magistrate under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. 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.P.C. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 15 Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second F.I.R. 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." 5. Reliance has also been placed on Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & ors., (2010) 12 SCC 254 wherein it was held: "Thus, in view of the above, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is a very important document. It is the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by the Officer In - Charge of the Police Station. It sets the machinery of criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends with the formation of an opinion under Section 169 or 170 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is quite possible that more than one piece of information be given to the Police Officer In - charge of the Police Station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offence. In such a case, he need not enter each piece of information in the Diary. In such a case, he need not enter each piece of information in the Diary. All other information given orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the facts mentioned in the First Information Report will be statements falling under Section 162 Cr.P.C. In such a case 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 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 counter claim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted." Hence, in view of the matter that on same incident, this second FIR has been lodged, which is liable to be quashed. But looking to the fact that in series of acts some additional facts have been mentioned in this FIR same could be investigated in FIR No. 53/2013.With this direction, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 54/2013 registered at Police Station Sambhar, Distt. Jaipur Rural for offence under Section 143, 283 IPC is quashed.Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma, Cl, SHO, Sambhar Lake, Jaipur Gramin, present in person has exceeded his jurisdiction and for the same incident and against the same parties, two FIRs have been lodged and he has misused his public office, hence a suitable disciplinary action be initiated against him.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police.Petition allowed.. *******