JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. being Sindri P.S. Case No. 92 of 2022 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 353, 332, 333, 337, 393, 448, 427, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 25.08.2022, Police Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge of Sindri Police Station got an information that an unlawful assembly has been formed by the accused persons of the case, being armed with deadly weapons. The Officer-in-Charge along with the police personnel at about 1:30 P.M. stopped the members of the unlawful assembly who were out to kill Lakhi Singh and to kill the police personnel who protect Lakhi Singh. The members of the unlawful assembly entered inside the office of Janta Mazdoor Sangh of Lakhi Singh and vandalized the same. On attempt being made by police to prohibit them, the members of the unlawful assembly resorted to brick pelting and caused murderous assault upon the police personnel. They also fired upon the police party from firearms and also vandalized the vehicles parked in front of the house of Lakhi Singh. The members of the unlawful assembly assaulted Assistant Sub Inspector of police –Ashok Kumar Singh and also pushed the informant causing injury and they also assaulted Sub Inspector of Police –Abhay Kumar and the petitioner was also a member of the said unlawful assembly. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the selfsame occurrence, police firstly lodged Baliapur P.S. Case No. 143 of 2022 and subsequently Sindri P.S. Case No. 92 of 2022 has been instituted. Hence, it is submitted that the F.I.R. of Sindri P.S. Case No. 92 of 2022 is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. In support of his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of T.T. Antony Vs. Hence, it is submitted that the F.I.R. of Sindri P.S. Case No. 92 of 2022 is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. In support of his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in 2001 AIR SC 2637, para -20, 21 & 28 of which reads as under:- “20.From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of 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 satisfied the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second FIR 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 FIR 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. 21. The learned Solicitor General relied on the judgment of this Court in Ram Lal Narang and others v. State (Delhi Administration), 1979 (2) SCC 322 : ( AIR 1979 SC 1791 : 1979 Cri LJ 1346) (referred to as Narangs case) to contend that there can be a second FIR in respect of the same subject matter. In that case the contention urged by the appellant was that the police had committed illegality, acted without jurisdiction in investigating into the second case and the Delhi Court acted illegally in taking cognizance of that (the second) case. A reference to the facts of that case would be interesting. Two precious antique pillars of sand stone were deposited in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, Karnal, as stolen property. One N.N. Malik filed an application before the Magistrate seeking custody of the pillars to make in detail study on the pretext that he was a research scholar. A reference to the facts of that case would be interesting. Two precious antique pillars of sand stone were deposited in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, Karnal, as stolen property. One N.N. Malik filed an application before the Magistrate seeking custody of the pillars to make in detail study on the pretext that he was a research scholar. It appears that the then Chief Judicial Magistrate of Karnal, (H.L. Mehra), was a friend of Malik. At the instance of Mehra the said Ilaqa Magistrate ordered that the custody of the pillars be given to Malik on his executing a bond. About three months thereafter Malik deposited two pillars in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, Karnal. After sometime it came to light that the pillars returned by Malik were not the original genuine pillars but were fake pillars. An FIR was lodged against both Malik and Mehra under Section 120-B read with Sections 406 and 420 of I. P. C. alleging conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust and cheating. The CBI after necessary investigation filed charge-sheet in the Court of Special Magistrate, Ambala, against both of them. Ultimately on the application of the public prosecutor the case was permitted to be withdrawn and the accused were discharged. Sometime later the original genuine pillars were found in London which led to registering an F.I.R. in Delhi under Section 120-B read with Section 411 of I.P.C., and Section 25(1) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 against three persons who were brothers (referred to as 'Narangs'). The gravamen of the charge against them was that they, Malik and Mehra, conspired together to obtain custody of the genuine pillars, got duplicate pillars made by experienced sculptors and had them substituted with a view to smuggle out the original genuine pillars to London. After issuing process for appearance of Narangs by the Magistrate at. Delhi, an application was filed for dropping the proceedings against them on the ground that the entire second investigation was illegal as the case on the same facts was already pending before Ambala Court, therefore, the Delhi Court acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the case on the basis of illegal investigation and the report forwarded by the police. The Magistrate referred the case to the High Court and Narangs also filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. The Magistrate referred the case to the High Court and Narangs also filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. The High Court declined to quash the proceedings, dismissed the application of Narangs and thus answered the reference. On appeal to this Court it was contended that the subject-matter of the two F.I.Rs. and two charge-sheets being the same there was an implied bar on the power of the police to investigate into the subsequent F.I.R. and the Court at Delhi to take cognizance upon the report of such information. This Court indicated that the real question was whether the two conspiracies were in substance and truth the same and held that the conspiracies in the two cases were not identical. It appears to us that the Court did not repeal the contention of the appellant regarding the illegality of the second FIR and the investigation based thereon being vitiated, but on facts found that the two FIRs in truth and substance were different - the first was a smaller conspiracy and the second was the larger conspiracy as it turned out eventually. It was pointed out that even under the Code of 1898 after filing of final report there could be further investigation and forwarding of further report. 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. 28. Coming to the facts of this case, which are not free from political overtones, the incident which gave rise to registering of FIRs took place on November 25, 1994 on the occasion of the visit of the Minister to Alakkandy Complex at Kuthuparamba, Tellicherry Road (Kannur District) for inauguration of the evening branch of the Cooperative Urban Bank. 28. Coming to the facts of this case, which are not free from political overtones, the incident which gave rise to registering of FIRs took place on November 25, 1994 on the occasion of the visit of the Minister to Alakkandy Complex at Kuthuparamba, Tellicherry Road (Kannur District) for inauguration of the evening branch of the Cooperative Urban Bank. The events that developed there led to firing by police at two places - (i) in the vicinity of the town hall for which FIR was lodged and Crime No. 353 /94 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 353, 324, 307 read with Section 149, IPC, Section 3(2)(e) of P.D.P.P. Act and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, was registered and (ii) in the vicinity of the Police Station, Kuthuparamba in respect of which FIR was filed and Crime No. 354 /94 of Kuthuparamba Police Station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 and 427 read with Section 149, IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of P.D.P.P. Act was registered. While the investigations on the basis of the said FIRs were pending, the report of Mr. K. Padmanabhan Nair, Inquiry Commission, was submitted to the Government. On June 30, 1997, the Additional Chief Secretary wrote to the Director-General of Police that the Government had accepted the report of the Commission and directed that the legal action be taken against those responsible on the basis of the findings of the Commission. On July 2, 1997, the Director General of Police, however, wrote to Inspector General of Police, (North Zone) to register a case immediately and have the same investigated by a senior officer. Two days thereafter, the Inspector General of Police added his own remarks - "firing without justification by which people were killed amounted to murder" - and ordered the Station House Officer to register a case under the appropriate sections and forwarded the investigation copy of the FIR to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (North Zone) for urgent personal investigation. On the date when the Additional Chief Secretary wrote to the Director-General of Police, the investigations initiated in the said two crimes relating to the same incident were in progress. The investigating agency should have taken advantage of the report of the Commission for the proper further investigation into the case. On the date when the Additional Chief Secretary wrote to the Director-General of Police, the investigations initiated in the said two crimes relating to the same incident were in progress. The investigating agency should have taken advantage of the report of the Commission for the proper further investigation into the case. On the facts which might come to light during investigation, if necessary, the investigating agency should have altered the offences under appropriate section of the relevant Acts and concluded the investigations. In view of the orders of the Director-General of Police to register a case and on the further direction of the Inspector General of Police, the officer-in-charge of Police Station registered Crime No. 268/97 of Kuthuparamba Police Station. A comparison and critical examination of the FIRs in Crime Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994 on one hand and FIR in Crime No. 268/97 on the other, discloses that the date and place of occurrence are the same; there is alluding, reference to the deaths caused due to police firing in the FIRs in Crime Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994. In any event, that fact was evident on the scene of occurrence. The naration of events, which we need not repeat here, are almost the same. The additional averments in Crime No. 268/97 are based on the findings in the report of the Commission. Having regard to the test laid down by this Court in Narangs' case (supra), with which we are in respectful agreement, we find that in truth and substance the essence of the offence in Crime Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994 is the same as in Crime No. 268 of 1997 of Kuthuparamba Police Station. In our view, in sending information, in regard to the same incident, duly enclosing a copy of the report of the commission of inquiry, to the Inspector General of Police for appropriate action, the Additional Chief Secretary adopted the right course of action. Perhaps the endorsement of the Inspector General of Police for registration of a case misled the subordinate police officers and the said letter with regard to the incident of November 25, 1994 at Kuthuparamba was registered again under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. which would be the second, FIR and, in our opinion, on the facts of this case, was irregular and a fresh investigation by the investigating agency was unwarranted and illegal. On that date the investigations in the earlier cases (Crime Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994) were pending. The correct course of action should have been to take note of the findings and the contents of the report, streamline the investigation to ascertain the true and correct facts, collect the evidence in support thereof, form an opinion under Sections 169 and 170, Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forward the report/reports under Section 173(2) or Section 178(3). Cr.P.C. to the concerned Magistrate. The course adopted in this case, namely, the registration of the information as the second FIR in regard to the same incident and making a fresh investigation is not permissible under the scheme of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. as pointed out above, therefore, the investigation undertaken and the report thereof cannot but be invalid. We have, therefore, no option except to quash the same leaving it open to the investigating agency to seek permission in Crime No. 353/94 or 354/94 of the Magistrate to make further investigation, forward further report or reports and thus proceed in accordance with law.” (emphasis supplied) 5. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the place of occurrence and time of the occurrence are different still they are the part of the same transaction and same occurrence. Hence, it is submitted that the F.I.R. of Sindri P.S. Case No. 92 of 2022 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 353, 332, 333, 337, 393, 448, 427, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. of Sindri P.S. Case No. 92 of 2022 and submits that the place of occurrence, the time of occurrence, the police station under which the occurrences took place are entirely different and the allegations are also different, hence the two occurrences cannot be treated to be of the same transaction. It is lastly submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. It is lastly submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record; it is pertinent to mentioned here that Baliapur P.S. Case No. 143 of 2022 has been lodged in connection with an occurrence which took place on 11:45 A.M. on 25.08.2022 involving the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 342, 353, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code according to which the petitioner and the co-accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly and being armed with deadly weapons, in prosecution of common object of the assembly, the members of the unlawful assembly abused the patrolling party of Baliapur Police Station and manhandled them and also deterred them from discharging their duties by using criminal force and tore the uniform of the informant of the Baliapur Police Station being the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. 8. This Court is of the considered view that the place of occurrence of Sindri P.S. Case No. 92 of 2022 is within the jurisdiction of Sindri Police Station in which the office of a Labour Union and the adjacent areas were vandalized and the police officers of Sindri Police Station who went to spot’s on getting the information about the offence were assaulted and attempt to murder them was made by firing upon them from firearms whereas the occurrence in respect of which Baliapur P.S. Case No. 143 of 2022 has been lodged for an altogether different occurrence within the jurisdiction of Baliapur Police Station where criminal force was used against the police personnel of Baliapur Police Station by abusing and manhandling them by the unlawful assembly. Unlike the facts of the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (Supra); in this case the time of the occurrence of the two incidences are also different. The naration of events are also entirely different. Unlike the facts of the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (Supra); in this case the time of the occurrence of the two incidences are also different. The naration of events are also entirely different. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, since the place of occurrence, time of occurrence and the manner of occurrence of the two incidences are entirely different, this is not a fit case where the F.I.R. of Sindri P.S. Case No. 92 of 2022 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 353, 332, 333, 337, 393, 448, 427, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.