ORDER : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Rania P. S. Case No. 22 of 2010 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 161, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. A First Information Report was instituted on the basis of the written report of the Block Development Officer, Rania stating therein that 101 Schemes under MANREGA was given to the petitioner in the financial year 2009-10 for its execution. The MANREGA Commissioner, Jharkhand vide letter dated 02.06.2010 had given a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti to submit the work file for the purpose of social audit of all the schemes pending till 2009 but the petitioner has submitted the work file of only a few schemes and, thereafter, a special team was constituted for enquiry which made spot inspection with respect to two schemes in which it was found that some labourer who had not worked had their names entered and money was withdrawn which was in violation of Paragraph 6.1 of the MANREGA guidelines. 3. Based on the aforesaid allegations Rania P. S. Case No. 22 of 2010 was instituted. 4. Heard Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, learned A.P.P. for the State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the First Information Report deserves to be quashed and set aside since with respect to same Scheme Khunti P. S. Case No. 97 of 2010 has also been instituted. It has been submitted that the subsequent First Information Report deserves to be quashed on the principle of 'sameness'. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred in a judgment in the case of T. T. Antony v. State of Kerala And Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 , Babubhai v. State of Gujarat And Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254 and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau Of Investigation And Another reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348 . 6. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, has submitted that perusal of both the First Information Reports suggest that the incident of misappropriation are with respect to separate blocks and, therefore, it cannot be concluded that both the First Information Reports are same and similar. 7. 6. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, has submitted that perusal of both the First Information Reports suggest that the incident of misappropriation are with respect to separate blocks and, therefore, it cannot be concluded that both the First Information Reports are same and similar. 7. The First Information Report which the petitioner seeks quashing of was instituted on 12.10.2010 with respect to certain discrepancies in the muster roll as the persons who have worked were not registered in the muster roll and the persons who did not work their names were entered in the muster roll and the amount was also withdrawn. Prior to institution of Rania P. S. Case No. 22 of 2010 another First Information Report being Khunti P. S. Case No. 97 of 2010 was instituted in which huge misappropriation of Government money was detected in the three blocks at Aarki, Karra and Torpa. The subsequent First Information Report related to the construction of road and several irregularities were found with respect to the said work. It further appears that Rania P. S. Case No. 22 of 2010 was with respect to some irregularities in the muster roll in Jaipur Panchayat in Rania Block but the previous First Information Report relates to discrepancies in the work in Aarki, Karra and Torpa Blocks. The allegations, therefore, in both the First Information Reports are neither connected nor are as a consequence of the instant First Information Report. 8. In the case of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat And Others (Supra) it was held 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. 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." In the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau Of Investigation And Another (Supra) it was held as follows:- "38. Mr Raval, learned ASG, by referring T.T. Antony submitted that the said principles are not applicable and relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case as the said judgment laid down the ratio that there cannot be two FIRs relating to the same offence or occurrence. The learned ASG further pointed out that in the present case, there are two distinct incidents/occurrences, inasmuch as one being the conspiracy relating to the murder of Sohrabuddin with the help of Tulsiram Prajapati and the other being the conspiracy to murder Tulsiram Prajapati - a potential witness to the earlier conspiracy to murder Sohrabuddin. We are unable to accept the claim of the learned ASG. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid proposition of law making registration of fresh FIR impermissible and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution is reiterated and reaffirmed in the following subsequent decisions of this Court: (1) Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2) Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (3) Chirra Shivraj v. State of A.P., and (4) C. Muniappan v. State of T.N.2 In C. Muniappan this Court explained the "consequence test" i.e. if an offence forming part of the second FIR arises as a consequence of the offence alleged in the first FIR then offences covered by both the FIRs are the same and, accordingly, the second FIR will be impermissible in law. In other words, the offences covered in both the FIRs shall have to be treated as a part of the first FIR. 40. In view of the factual situation as projected by CBI itself, the ratio laid down by this Court in C. Muniappan viz. In other words, the offences covered in both the FIRs shall have to be treated as a part of the first FIR. 40. In view of the factual situation as projected by CBI itself, the ratio laid down by this Court in C. Muniappan viz. merely because two separate complaints had been lodged did not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed (see T.T. Antony )." The aforesaid judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as both the First Information Report cannot be said to be based on the same allegation or is based on same work which was to be carried out and such being the position, I do not find any merit in this application which is, accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed.