JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing of FIR No.107/2014 dated 11.03.2014 of Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau, CPS, Jaipur, District Anti Corruption Bureau Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 2. The main ground, to challenge the impugned FIR, taken by the petitioner in this criminal misc. petition as well as during the course of arguments, is that a second FIR in relation to one offence is not maintainable. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 02.04.2013, the FIR No.44/2013 was registered at Police Station, Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh at the instance of one Raj Kumar S/o Kashi Ram for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 166, 467, 468 and 471 IPC while alleging that the petitioner, who was the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bharwana, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, in connivance with Satyanarayan Sharma, Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bharwana, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, had illegally alloted residential pattas to several persons, who are their supporters in respect of land situated in Murabba Nos.48 and 54 of Chak 8 DPN. It is contended that in the FIR No.44/2013, it was specifically alleged that around 85 pattas were illegally issued by the accused persons by preparing forged documents. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that specific allegation has also been levelled against the accused persons that by issuing the illegal pattas to several persons the accused persons have misappropriated lacs of rupees and, therefore, committed offence of cheating and forgery. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the police after thorough investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR No.44/2013, has filed negative final report while concluding that there is no evidence to conclude that the accused persons have committed any offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 166 IPC. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the police after thorough investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR No.44/2013, has filed negative final report while concluding that there is no evidence to conclude that the accused persons have committed any offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 166 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the matter regarding allotment of patta by the Gram Panchayat Bharwana, when the petitioner was working as Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat, was thoroughly investigated by the police and the police has concluded that no offence as alleged in the FIR No.44/2013 is made out against the petitioner but again second FIR in relation to the very same incident has been filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau against the petitioner. It is strenuously argued that in the circumstances narrated above there is no occasion for the Anti Corruption Bureau to register the impugned FIR against the petitioner in respect of the same incident i.e. allotment of pattas by the Gram Panchayat Bharwana to several persons in respect of Murabba Nos.48 and 54 of Chak No.8 DPN. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 2637 , Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in AIR 2013 SC 3794 and Anju Chaudhary v. State of UP & Anr., reported in 2013 Cri. L.J. 776 , the second FIR in relation to the same incident is not permissible under the law and, therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the facts narrated in the impugned FIR are quite different from the facts narrated in the earlier FIR No.44/2013, therefore, no case for interference is made out and the present criminal misc. petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record and also critically examined the FIR No.44/2013 and the impugned FIR. 8. It is noticed that the FIR No.44/2013 was registered at the instance of Raj Kumar S/o Kashi Ram, wherein he has contended that the land of Murabba Nos. petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record and also critically examined the FIR No.44/2013 and the impugned FIR. 8. It is noticed that the FIR No.44/2013 was registered at the instance of Raj Kumar S/o Kashi Ram, wherein he has contended that the land of Murabba Nos. 48 and 54 of Chak No.8 DPN was reserved for Abadi. It is contended that the town planing of said land has not been sanctioned till date and the map has also not been verified and the Gram Panchayat Bharwana has also not deposited the required fees for that purpose. It is contended that the residential pattas in the above mentioned land were issued in favour of the complainant and other residents of the village but the same were cancelled by the Gram Panchayat Bharwana last year and residential houses were demolished by JCB machine. It is alleged that on the land reserved for Abadi, the Gram Panchayat Bharwana has no jurisdiction to grant patta but the accused persons illegally issued 85 forged pattas to the several persons by accepting Rs. 25,000/- from each of them. It is alleged that the said pattas have been issued by the accused persons with intention to grab the land. It is further alleged that the Panchayat Samiti Bhadra, District Hanumangarh has issued written direction to the accused persons not to issue any patta in respect of the above mentioned land but they have illegally issued pattas on the basis of forged documents and misappropriated lacs of rupees, therefore, they have committed offence of cheating and forgery. 9. It is not in dispute that the allegations levelled in the FIR No.44/2013 were investigated by the police and the police has thereafter, filed negative final report while concluding that in respect of the land of Murabba Nos.48 and 54 of Chak No.8 DPN, earlier some pattas were issued in favour of the complainant and some other persons, which were later on cancelled by the Gram Panchayat, Bharwana when the petitioner was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Bharwana. The police has also noted the fact that the complainant along with some other persons had illegally made encroachment on the said land, which was removed and the complainant has filed this FIR due to the said enmity. The police has also noted the fact that the complainant along with some other persons had illegally made encroachment on the said land, which was removed and the complainant has filed this FIR due to the said enmity. The police has also noted that the pattas issued by the Gram Panchayat, Bharwana have also been challenged by the complainant by filing an appeal before the Panchayat Samiti Bhadra, District Hanumangarh and in view of these facts, no offence as alleged in the FIR is made out. 10. However, a bare reading of the contents of the impugned FIR will make it clear that the said FIR has been lodged at the instance of Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh, wherein it is specifically alleged that in respect of 3.75 hectare of the land in Chak No.8 DPN, the petitioner being the Sarpanch, in connivance with the then Secretary and other Ward Panch of the Gram Panchayat Bharwana, had issued pattas in favour of several persons, who are either not entitled or qualified. It is also alleged that as per the provisions of Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 or the provisions of Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, the Abadi land of Gram Panchayat is required to be alloted only through auction but the accused persons have illegally issued pattas in respect of the said land under Rule 158 of Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. It is further alleged in the impugned FIR that the cost of the land which was alloted to several persons by the Gram Panchayat is about Rs. 70.22 lacs, whereas the same has been allotted to several ineligible persons at a very low cost. It is also alleged in the complaint that the amount received by the petitioner from the persons, to whom the pattas were alloted, has not been deposited by the petitioner in the account of Gram Panchayat and as such the petitioner has misappropriated the amount of Rs. 70.22 lacs. 11. There is no quarrel about the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in relation to the same incident, the second FIR cannot be maintained. However, from comparison and critical examination of FIR No.44/2013 and impugned FIR, it is clear that both are based on new facts and the version of events in both the FIRs are totally different. 12. However, from comparison and critical examination of FIR No.44/2013 and impugned FIR, it is clear that both are based on new facts and the version of events in both the FIRs are totally different. 12. In the earlier FIR No.44/2013, the allegation was that the allotment of Abadi land by the Gram Panchayat was without any authority. However, there was no allegations in the said FIR of corruption and to the effect that the land was alloted to ineligible persons or the same was alloted at a very low cost. 13. In the impugned FIR, specific allegation regarding allotment of land to the ineligible persons is levelled. It is also specifically alleged that the land was alloted without following the due process as provided under the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. It is also alleged that with the allotment of the land to ineligible persons, the loss of sum of Rs. 70.22 lacs has been caused to the Gram Panchayat. It is also alleged that the money received by the petitioner in lieu of allotment of land to ineligible persons has never been deposited in the account of Gram Panchayat. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.T. Antony's case (supra) in para No.21 has held as under:- "21. ...... The 1973 Cr.P.C. specifically provides for further investigation after forwarding of report under subsection (2) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. and forwarding of further report or reports to the concerned Magistrate under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. It follows that if the gravamen of the charges in the two FIRs - the first and the second - is in substance and truth the same, registering the second FIR and making fresh investigation and forwarding report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. will be irregular and the Court cannot take cognizance of the same." 15. In the present case, as observed earlier, the allegations levelled in the earlier FIR No.44/2013 are distinct from the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR. Neither there was allegation of corruption nor causing loss to the Gram Panchayat in the FIR No.44/2013 and, therefore, the investigation agency had no occasion to carry out any investigation in relation to said allegations. Hence, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in T.T. Antony's case (supra) is of no help to the petitioner. 16. Neither there was allegation of corruption nor causing loss to the Gram Panchayat in the FIR No.44/2013 and, therefore, the investigation agency had no occasion to carry out any investigation in relation to said allegations. Hence, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in T.T. Antony's case (supra) is of no help to the petitioner. 16. In Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah's case (supra), the court has found that the allegation of larger conspiracy is covered in the first FIR against the accused, therefore, the second FIR and the charge-sheet in relation to the subsequent conspiracy is not maintainable. In the case in hand, the allegations levelled in both the FIRs are distinct. In the first FIR, there was no allegation of criminal conspiracy and, therefore, the second FIR based on different facts is maintainable. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr., reported in (2012) 1 SCC 130 has examined the question of maintaining of second FIR in relation to the same incident and after taking into consideration the earlier pronouncements on the subject and the provisions of the Cr.P.C. has held as under:- "18. Thus, it is evident that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the court or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour. However, the second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed of on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit." 18. After relying on the judgment of the Shivshankar Singh's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anju Chaudhary's case (supra) has held as under:- "22. However, the second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed of on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit." 18. After relying on the judgment of the Shivshankar Singh's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anju Chaudhary's case (supra) has held as under:- "22. In matters of complaints, the Court in the case of Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 1 SCC 130 expressed the view that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of a second complaint even on the same facts, provided that the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or where the complete facts could not be placed before the court and the applicant came to know of certain facts after the disposal of the first complaint. The Court applied the test of full consideration of the complaints on merits. In paragraph 18, the Court held as under:- "18. Thus, it is evident that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the court or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour. However, the second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed of on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit." 23. The First Information Report is a very important document, besides that it sets the machinery of criminal law in motion. It is a very material document on which the entire case of the prosecution is built. Upon registration of FIR, beginning of investigation in a case, collection of evidence during investigation and formation of the final opinion is the sequence which results in filing of a report under Section 173 of the Code. The possibility that more than one piece of information is given to the police officer-incharge of a police station, in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences, cannot be ruled out. The possibility that more than one piece of information is given to the police officer-incharge of a police station, in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences, cannot be ruled out. Other materials and information given to or received otherwise by the investigating officer would be statements covered under Section 162 of the Code. The Court in order to examine the impact of one or more FIRs has to rationalise the facts and circumstances of each case and then apply the test of 'sameness' to find out whether both FIRs relate to the same incident and to the same occurrence, are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction or relate completely to two distinct occurrences. If the answer falls in the first category, the second FIR may be liable to be quashed. However, in case the contrary is proved, whether the version of the second FIR is different and they are in respect of two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible, This is the view expressed by this Court in the case of Babu Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Ors., [ (2010) 12 SCC 254 : (2010 AIR SCW 5126)]. This judgment clearly spells out the distinction between two FIRs relating to the same incident and two FIRs relating to different incident or occurrences of the same incident etc." 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anju Chaudhary's case (supra) has clearly held that if the allegations in the first FIR are based on insufficient material or are distinct from first FIR, the second FIR is maintainable. 20. As stated earlier, in the present case the allegation in the two FIRs are distinct and charges alleged are not similar, therefore, no case for quashing the impugned FIR is made out on the ground that it is second FIR in relation to the same offence. 21. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******