JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the A.C.B. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that earlier complaint petition being Complaint Case No.85 of 2007 was filed by the complainant- Anil Kumar Gupta before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj at Palamau which was registered as Vishrampur P.S. Case No.45 of 2007 dated 13.04.2007 under Sections 420, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code but after investigation final form was submitted by the police that no case is made out against the petitioner as the complaint has been lodged with a view to take revenge against the petitioner. Thereafter, protest petition was filed which is still pending. He further submitted that apart from the pendency of protest petition instant F.I.R. was filed by the Vigilance Department dated 20.10.2010 under Sections 420, 120B, 467, 468, 471, 406, 409, 109, 419 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which is abuse of process of law. The allegations are almost same and identical, therefore, instant F.I.R. is fit to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a decision of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Versus Central Bureau of Investigation & Another reported in 2013 Cri.L.J. 2313 submitted that only earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 of the Code. 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 same cognizable offence. F.I.R. is a report which gives first information relating to any offence, so there cannot be second F.I.R. in respect of same offence because whenever any further information is received by the investigating agency, it is always in furtherance of first F.I.R. 4. Learned counsel for the A.C.B. by filing counter affidavit submitted that the first F.I.R. was filed by the Jharkhand Police and after investigation had submitted final form but due to protest petition, the matter is pending before the court, but after preliminary enquiry and on direction of Vigilance Commissioner, instant F.I.R. was lodged not only in the Sections of Indian Penal Code but also under Prevention of Corruption Act. He further submitted that by showing name of fake students in school admission register and in Mid-Day Meal register, misappropriated and embezzled the Government fund by taking advantage of fake students. Some of the students who were students of Dasmesh Model School, Village Belwatiker, District Palamu were also shown in the admission register of Pandeypura Rajkiya School and the stipend relating to those students were drawn by the accused persons and embezzled the Government fund, therefore, the quashing application filed by the petitioners is fit to be dismissed. The Anti Corruption Bureau independently after making preliminary enquiry and after approval by the Vigilance Commissioner proceeded in the matter and found allegations under the Sections of Indian Penal Code as well as under Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. In the above circumstances, instant application is dismissed as the matter relates to embezzlement of Government fund by the Government officials attracting specialized investigation from specialized agency. 6. I.A. No. 8083 of 2017 filed for stay of further proceedings also stands closed.