JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.68/2016 under Section 287, 336 and 358 RPC, registered against the petitioner at Police Station Khour, Aknoor. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is a Government employee of J&K Police Department and at present is working on the post of Selection Grade Constable. In the month of April, 2016, the petitioner was deployed as Personal Security Officer (hereinafter referred to as “PSO”) by SSP Security, Central Pool, Jammu, with one political PDP leader, namely Sh. Rajinder Singh, for his security and protection in view of threat to his life and his family members, who is presently holding the post of vice-president of PDP Youth, Jammu. It is stated that the petitioner is an innocent and is falsely implicated in a false and frivolous case registered at Police Station Khour, Akhnoor. The case FIR No.68/2016 came to be registered at Police Station Khour, Akhnoor, against the petitioner and the allegation, as alleged in the FIR against the petitioner is that on 03/08/2016, while the petitioner coming back from Pargwal in the vehicle with the said PDP leader with whom the petitioner is attached as PSO and on reaching at Nai Basti, a mob which was already gathered at Nai Basti Chowk in view of some fighting between local persons, attacked the vehicle and persons inside the vehicle by pelting stones on them and in view of that the petitioner fired four rounds from his service rifle and no one was injured, as such the petitioner has been booked under Sections 287/336/358 RPC for his negligence. It is further submitted that this is the only allegation against the petitioner that in view of attack by the mob by pelting stones on the petitioner officer's vehicle, the petitioner fired four rounds from his service rifle. 3. It is stated in the instant petition that prior to registration of aforesaid FIR, the PDP leader with whom the petitioner is attached as PSO has registered the FIR No.67/2016 (Annexure-B) in respect of the same occurrence against Madan Lal and others for attacking him and other persons including petitioner with deadly weapons and pelting stones and also causing injury to petitioner. It is also stated in the said FIR that three persons from the mob also tried to snatch the service rifle of the petitioner. It is also stated in the said FIR that three persons from the mob also tried to snatch the service rifle of the petitioner. A bare perusal of the allegations made in the FIR, even if the same taken are true for the sake of arguments though denied, the offences mentioned in the impugned FIR does not constitute offence, as the same is clear from the impugned FIR itself that there was attack by the mob on the person with whom the petitioner is attached as PSO and in discharge of duty, a personal security officer is duty bound to protect his officer and further, it is submitted that when there is already one FIR registered, wherein it is specifically alleged that the mob has attacked the political leader and the petitioner with whom the petitioner is attached as PSO's, lodging of FIR (second) against the petitioner for the same occurrence is abuse of process of law. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned FIR (Annexure A) has challenged the same on the following grounds:- a. That the impugned FIR and complaint is bad in law as well as the facts and is liable to be quashed out rightly. b. That bare reading of FIR as a whole and allegation made therein, even if, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety no prudent person can lead to the conclusion that offences Under Section 287/336/358 RPC are made out against the petitioners. c. That the allegation made in the complaint/petition against the petitioner are patently absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner. The continuation of the FIR is sheer abuse of process of law and the Hon’ble Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction can prevent the same. The continuation of the FIR is sheer abuse of process of law and the Hon’ble Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction can prevent the same. d. That a bare perusal of the allegations made in the FIR, even if the same taken are true for the sake of arguments though denied, the offences mentioned in the impugned FIR does not constitute offence as the petitioner has acted in discharge of his official duty as the same is cleared from the impugned FIR that there was attack by the mob on the Vehicle's of PDP leader with whom the petitioner is attached as PSO and in discharge of his duty the petitioner Fired four rounds. e. That the FIR is liable to be quashed because there was already an FIR registered with respect to same occurrence by the person, i.e., PDP leader with whom the petitioner is attached as PSO and was specifically alleged therein that his Vehicle and party men's men including petitioner was attacked with sharp edged offence and pelting stones on them by the mob. So what was required to respondent to investigate the matter and if during investigation the respondent comes to know about something negligence on the part of petitioner in some other occurrence, which requires registration of FIR under law, he could have done so, but here the respondent register impugned FIR with respect to same occurrence on the same day without looking into allegations in the first FIR, which was lodged by the PDP Leader with whom the petitioner was attached as PSO. f. That the Hon'ble apex Court in a recent judgment has held that when there is already an FIR registered in respect of occurrence, second FIR with respect to same occurrence is abuse process of law. g. That the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed, because Second FIR cannot be registered on receipt of subsequent information received regarding the same incident. h. Because the information given to the police officer of the cognizable offence and reduced to writing as required by Section 154, Criminal Procedure Code is known as first information. The word "first information report is not mentioned in the Criminal Procedure Code but it is understood to mean information recorded under Section 154, Criminal Procedure Code. h. Because the information given to the police officer of the cognizable offence and reduced to writing as required by Section 154, Criminal Procedure Code is known as first information. The word "first information report is not mentioned in the Criminal Procedure Code but it is understood to mean information recorded under Section 154, Criminal Procedure Code. The object of the first information report is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating authority, receiving such information about the alleged offence, he can take suitable steps and further if any subsequent information is received in respect of same occurrence, there is no need of registering the second FIR An information is sufficient to authorize the 1.O. to unearth all connected matter, prior or subsequent, to the filing of the case. i. That the impugned FIR if allowed to sustain shall wreak much of unnecessary hardship and inconvenience upon the petitioner for none of his fault and will also let down the morale of PSO’s attached with different/Hon’ble Dignitaries. Moreover, the FIR even does not stand good the litmus test of law and logic. In the given set of facts and circumstances stated hereinabove as well as on law the present case is fiddle-fit case for interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction and all enabling provisions to prevent the abuse of process of law. j. That there are legal, valid and all justifiable reasons to set aside the impugned FIR in this petition, the impugned FIR is highly prejudicial to the interest of justice, equity and fair play. The FIR impugned is patently illegal and perverse if allowed to stand, it is sure to result in miscarriage of justice, as such, needs to be set aside. k. That the impugned FIR is bad per se. l. Rest of the grounds shall be submitted at the time of hearing. 5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in case titled, “T.T. Antony Vs. k. That the impugned FIR is bad per se. l. Rest of the grounds shall be submitted at the time of hearing. 5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in case titled, “T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala”, reported in 2001 AIR (SC) 2637, where in it is held that u/s 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 154 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. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. 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 of the Cr.P.C. 6. I have considered the contentions of counsel for petitioner. There is no dispute with regard to fact that second FIR cannot be lodged by same aggrieved person against same accused with regard to same incident. But counter FIR by accused person against complainant is not prohibited. 7. In 2007 (5) RAJ 540 in case titled Bank of Rajashan v. Keshav Bangur, it is held as under:- “Lastly, in the case of Kari Choudhary v. Most. Sita Devi and others ‘ AIR 2002 SC 441 at page 443, this Court has explained the legal position in case of FIRs being filed against the same accused in respect of the same case. This Court has held that when there are rival versions in respect of the same incident, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both by the same investigating agency. This Court has held that when there are rival versions in respect of the same incident, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both by the same investigating agency. That, to set aside the proceedings merely on the ground that the final report has been laid in the first FIR is, to say the least, too technical as the ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed and if so who has committed them. Even otherwise, the investigating agency is not precluded from further investigation in respect of an offence in spite of forwarding a report under Section 173(2) on a previous occasion. We quote here-in-below paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment which read as follow: "11. Learned counsel adopted an alternative contention that once the proceeding initiated under FIR No. 135 ended in a final report the police had no authority to register a second FIR and number it as FIR 208. Of course the legal position is that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency. Even that apart, the report submitted by the court styling it as FIR No. 208 of 1998 need be considered as an information submitted to the court reading the new discovery made by the police during investigation the persons not named in FIR No. 135 are the real culprits. To quash the said proceeding merely on the ground that final report had been laid in FIR No. 135 is, to say the least, too technical. The ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed and, if so, who have committed it.” 8. In 2011 (6) RAJ in case titled Shiv Shanker Singh v State of Bihar, it is held as under:- 6. The ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed and, if so, who have committed it.” 8. In 2011 (6) RAJ in case titled Shiv Shanker Singh v State of Bihar, it is held as under:- 6. We do not find any force in the submission made on behalf of the respondents that as in respect of same incident i.e. dacoity and murder of Gopal Singh, the appellant himself along with others is facing criminal trial, proceedings cannot be initiated against the respondent No.1 at his behest as registration of two FIRs in respect of the same incident is not permissible in law, for the simple reason that law does not prohibit registration and investigation of two FIRs in respect of the same incident in case the versions are different. The test of sameness has to be applied otherwise there would not be cross cases and counter cases. Thus, filing another FIR in respect of the same incident having a different version of events is permissible. (Vide: Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC 1791 ; Sudhir & Ors., v. State of M.P., AIR 2001 SC 826 ; T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 2637 ;Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4320 ; and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 254 ).” 9. In view of above law, the contention of counsel for petitioner is not tenable. Rest of grounds taken are with regard to appreciation of evidence, which this court cannot appreciate in this petition. It is not the case of petitioner that there is some legal bar under any Act in lodging FIR. 10. Hence, this petition is dismissed.