Order : By this application, the petitioner seeks quashing of the F.I.R, i.e., Jagarnathpur (Pundag) P.S. Case No.328 of 2013 (corresponding to G.R. No.6673 of 2013) registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C) and Sections 25(1)-(b) and 26 of the Arms Act. 2. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid case has been instituted in course of investigation of the Sikidiri P.S. Case No.35 of 2012 dated 09.10.2012, registered for the offence under Sections 364 I.P.C and 27 of the Arms Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the aforesaid case a pistol used by the petitioner was seized and the petitioner had produced the licence of the pistol. That on verification of the licence it was found to be a forged and fake license, accordingly Sikidiri P.S. Case No.35 of 2012 was registered. Learned counsel, while relying on the decision in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. CBI & Anr,(2013) 6, SCC, 348 has contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that administering criminal justice is a two-end process, where guarding the ensured rights of the accused under the Constitution is as imperative as ensuring justice to the victim and balance has to be struck to protect the fundamental rights of the accused enshrined in the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to enquire a cognizable offence. It is submitted that Hon'ble the Apex Court, while discussing and elaborating on the provisions of law has held that power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to face enquiry by the police in respect of the same incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. It is contended that it would be evident from the facts that in the present case both the F.I.Rs have arisen out of a occurrence which took place in the same transaction and lodging of the second F.I.R, i.e., Jagarnathpur (Pundag) P.S. Case No.328 of 2013 comes in the teeth of the settled proposition of law as propounded by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case and the ratio laid down in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 2637 . State of Kerala & Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 2637 . On the above grounds, learned counsel has submitted that in view of the settled legal position, the second F.I.R, i.e., Jagarnathpur (Pundag) P.S. Case No.328 of 2013, is fit to be quashed. It is submitted that further report in terms of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C can be forwarded only after seeking permission of the court which has not been adhered to in the instant case. 3. Per contra, learned A.P.P has contended that lodging of the second F.I.R is in consonance with the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C, as it would be evident that the license produced by the present petitioner and another co-accused with respect to the seized pistols were found to be fake and forged. That in fact two distinct offences were committed hence both the F.I.Rs are maintainable though he has not controverted the fact that both the F.I.Rs arose on account of the same occurrence. Learned A.P.P has contended that the charge-sheets have been submitted under distinct offences and this can cause no prejudice to the petitioner as he has the liberty to lead the evidence in his defence during the trials. 4. Heard. Perused the materials on record. Sikidiri P.S. Case No.35 of 2012 was lodged on the statement of the informant, narrating therein that on 09.10.2012 he along with some of his friends had gone to see the construction of Hill View Farm situated on the plot of land and at that time the accused/ petitioner along with the other co-accused came there on a red coloured Scorpio vehicle and on gun point all the accused dragged Gulfam, a companion of the informant towards the Scorpio vehicle, whereupon the persons accompanying the informant ran to free Gulfam from the clutches of the accused then the petitioner fired from his pistol. The police had seized the pistols and the licence produced by the petitioner was verified and was found to be a forged and fake licence, accordingly a second F.I.R being the Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.328 of 2013 was registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C and Sections 25(1)-(b) and 26 of the Arms Act. The police had seized the pistols and the licence produced by the petitioner was verified and was found to be a forged and fake licence, accordingly a second F.I.R being the Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.328 of 2013 was registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C and Sections 25(1)-(b) and 26 of the Arms Act. It is evident that the second F.I.R was lodged during investigation of Sikidiri P.S. Case No.35 of 2012 when the fact that the pistol licence was fake and forged came to the knowledge of the Investigating Officer on the basis of the memo sent by the Superintendent of Police. For proper appreciation of the proposition of law on the question of lodging of two F.I.Rs arising out of the same transaction, it will be pertinent to refer to the ratio adjudicated in the case of Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 254 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para – 21 has observed as follows :- “21. 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 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.” 5. At this juncture it is not disputed that the second F.I.R or case has arisen out of the same occurrence. Therefore in the admitted facts and circumstances it is relevant to notice the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (Supra) wherein at para – 37 it has been held, as follows :- “37. At this juncture it is not disputed that the second F.I.R or case has arisen out of the same occurrence. Therefore in the admitted facts and circumstances it is relevant to notice the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (Supra) wherein at para – 37 it has been held, as follows :- “37. 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. In T.T. Anthony (supra), this Court has categorically held that registration of second FIR (which is not a cross case) is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The following conclusion in paragraph Nos. 19, 20 and 27 of that judgment are relevant which read as under: (SCC pp. 196-97 & 200) “19. The scheme of CrPC is that an officer in charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 CrPC 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 CrPC, as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(2) CrPC. 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 CrPC. 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 Section 154 CrPC. 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 Section 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 Section 173 CrPC. 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 CrPC 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) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Section 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Section 154 and 156 CrPC, 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 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.” The above referred declaration of law by this Court has never been diluted in any subsequent judicial pronouncements even while carving out exceptions.” 6. Thus, the proposition of law propounded by the Supreme Court, squarely covers the facts and circumstances of the second F.I.R, i.e., Jagarnathpur (Pundag) P.S. Case No.328 of 2013 (corresponding to G.R. No.6673 of 2013), lodged in the present case. Accordingly, Jagarnathpur (Pundag) P.S. Case No.328 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi is, hereby quashed, and the charge-sheet filed in the aforesaid case, shall be treated as supplementary charge-sheet in the first F.I.R, i.e., Sikidiri P.S. Case No.35 of 2012. 7. In the result, the Cr.M.P stands allowed.