ORDER : This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.73/2020 arising out of PCR No.3335/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 110, 120B, 420, 408, 379, 504 & 506 of IPC. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the second respondent herein had filed a private compliant before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, in PCR No.3335/2020, wherein, an allegation is made in the complaint that the first petitioner was working in the hospital and the third petitioner is the mother of petitioner No.1 and the second petitioner is the girl friend of the first petitioner herein and they conspired with each other. That on 19.02.2020, the first petitioner has worked as Night Receptionist. On 22.02.2020 at 10 a.m, the complainant came to know about the incident when she opened the personal wooden almirah cupboard, where she used to keep sarees and valuable jewels worth of Rs.30 Lakhs was missing and the staff have replied that they have not aware of the same and a complaint was given to the Girinagar Police suspecting the role of the petitioners herein. Subsequently, on C.C.TV Camera footage verification, the first petitioner herein went inside room No.404 and thereafter he left the hospital. On enquiry, he admitted that he took the jewels and also the cash and says that “his mother will come and pay you, for that you should wait, if you cannot wait you can go and give police complaint against me, because Girinagar police are his friends. When they insisted to pay the money, he caused the life threat and he has stolen totally Rs.70 to 80 Lakhs worth of gold and sarees and money. Hence, the learned Magistrate having received the complaint and perusing the complaint averments invoked Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, and refer the matter for investigation. While referring the matter, the learned Magistrate looked into the contents of the complaint and found that cognizable and non-cognizable offences are disclosed and he formed an opinion that it is a matter for investigation. Based on this, the police have registered a case in Crime No.73/2020 and the matter is under investigation. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that an incident was taken place on 16.02.2020. Based on this, the police have registered a case in Crime No.73/2020 and the matter is under investigation. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that an incident was taken place on 16.02.2020. A complaint was filed on 21.02.2020 and the same was registered as NCR, wherein, they have mentioned the amount worth of Rs.1,50,000/- was missing. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that, the other complaint was given on 23.02.2020, wherein, an allegation is made by the husband that to the extent of Rs.72 to 80 Lakhs worth of medicines, valuables and cash had been missing from their premises and hence, requested to take steps. Based on this complaint, Crime No.57/2020 is registered. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 381 of IPC. 4. The learned counsel vehemently contend that the second complaint is filed before the Court making the other allegations in the complaint and the same is also in respect of the very same incident and there cannot be two complaints against the petitioners herein on the same cause of action. Hence, the very initiation of private complaint is nothing but an abuse of process. The averments made in the complaint is clear that which refers to the earlier incident also and the earlier complaint given by the husband and also this complaint contrary to each other and distinct allegations are made in the complaint in one breadth he says the worth of Rs.1,50,000/-and subsequently, it is alleged that Rs.70 to 80 Lakhs. Hence, it requires interference of this Court by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant would vehemently contend that, an earlier incident was taken place on 16.02.2020 at 6:30 a.m. he has break open the almirah and removed the money and medicines and other materials. The second complaint is in respect of the incident took place on 19.2.2020 at 8 a.m. and he again came and conspired with other petitioners herein and caused the damage to CCTV and also the DVR. In this regard, a complaint was filed on 2.3.2020 and the police have refused to receive the complaint. Hence, a private complaint is filed on 5.3.2020. 6. In this regard, a complaint was filed on 2.3.2020 and the police have refused to receive the complaint. Hence, a private complaint is filed on 5.3.2020. 6. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court each of the paragraphs of the complaint, wherein, specific allegations are made with regard to destroying CCTV camera footages. Paragraph No.20 of the complaint discloses the incident happened in room No.404 of the hospital. The learned counsel vehemently contends that these two complaints are in respect of different incidents and also the offences invoked against the petitioners herein are different. Earlier complaint is only against petitioner No.1 and subsequent private complaint is in respect of these three petitioners, who indulged in conspiring with each other and destroyed the evidence with regard to he went and broke open the lock and caused the loss. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State would submit that the averments made in the complaint is specific and in the complaint also earlier complaint has been referred in the subsequent complaint and the second cause of action has been specifically mentioned in the complaint when the different incidents are taken place and the law is set in motion with regard to the different cause of action, there cannot be any quashing of the complaint. 8. Having heard the arguments of the respective counsel and also on perusal of the records, it is clear that based on the earlier complaint given by the husband dated 23.02.2020, the police have registered the FIR and also investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 381 of IPC. The present private complaint is filed by the wife before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate vide his order dated 13.03.2020, while referring the matter applied his judicious mind and reference has been made in the order that on perusal of the complaint averments that the cognizable and non cognizable offences are disclosed. Hence, he formed an opinion that it is a fit case to refer the matter for investigation by exercising the powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 9. Hence, he formed an opinion that it is a fit case to refer the matter for investigation by exercising the powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 9. Having perused the material available on record, particularly, the complaint averments in PCR No.3335/2020, no doubt, in an earlier incident, it is also referred, but in the complaint, a specific cause of action has been taken place with regard to complaint dated 16.2.2020 at 6:10 a.m. and the second cause of action also mentioned in the complaint and the specific averments is made against these petitioners with regard to the allegations made against these petitioners that they came to know about the same on 20.2.2020 when they opened the personal wooden cupboard, where they used to keep the valuable jewels and sarees worth of Rs.30 Lakhs. Subsequently, he caused the life threat that they want money and jewels and think about their life he took the money and jewels for emergency need urgently, because his mother required and also for his sister’s delivery expenditure. Hence, he has taken the same. Having perused the averments made in the second complaint no doubt earlier complaint was also registered; specific averments are made in the complaint with regard to they came to know about the incident 22.02.2020. When the specific allegation is made in the complaint that he has destroyed the evidence i.e., CCTV and DVR when the separate cause of action has been taken place. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there cannot be two complaints in respect of the same incident cannot be accepted. There are two incidents particularly on 16.02.2020 as well as on 19.02.2020, in which the petitioners herein caused damages to the CCTV and also the DVR. No doubt, there are contradictions in the complaint averments with regard to the value of the jewels and also the property, which are stolen from the cupboard, wherein, they used to keep the valuables and the same can be ascertained only during the course of investigation not at the of stage of registration of the FIR. No doubt the complainant not disclosed anything as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that how they got worth of Rs.30 Lakhs and the same is the question of investigation. The investigation has to be conducted by the Investigating Officer. No doubt the complainant not disclosed anything as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that how they got worth of Rs.30 Lakhs and the same is the question of investigation. The investigation has to be conducted by the Investigating Officer. The very registration of the case is only to set the law into motion and it requires to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. The offences invoked against the petitioners herein also are different offences not the offence under Section 381 of IPC. The present complaint discloses the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 408, 504 and 506 of IPC. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. The complaint discloses that the cognizable offences are alleged in the complaint and the learned Magistrate applied his judicious mind in referring the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to quash the FIR. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The petition is rejected. (ii) However, the liberty is given to the petitioners to question the charge sheet, if need arises.