JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 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. arising out of Pakur (T) P.S. Case No. 151 of 2006, corresponding to G.R. No. 406 of 2006 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471, 477A and 120 B of Indian Penal Code and also the consequential orders and proceedings arising out the said F.I.R. now pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner in capacity of Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Dumka being a public servant has committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, using of forged documents for cheating and criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons including the executive engineer, assistant engineer, junior engineer and the contractor; on the basis of forged bills has misappropriated Rs. 3,37,665/-. 4. Police after investigation of the case has submitted charge sheet inter-alia against the petitioner for committing the said offences but the copy of the charge sheet has not been annexed with this criminal miscellaneous petition. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that altogether six FIRs have been lodged against the petitioner for criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, using of forged documents for the purpose of cheating and other allied offences for six different works in which misappropriation was allegedly caused by the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the co-accused persons have faced trial in one of the case and have been convicted vide judgment dated 22.10.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pakur vide Pakur P.S. Case No. 149 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 404 of 2006. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the same cause of action six cases have been instituted. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.P. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Kerala, 2023 (1) JLJR (SC) 359, paragraph no. 28 of which reads as under: “28. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the same cause of action six cases have been instituted. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.P. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Kerala, 2023 (1) JLJR (SC) 359, paragraph no. 28 of which reads as under: “28. What is to be noted here is that both these provisions, i.e. Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 20 of the Constitution of India use the term ‘same offence’. Before dealing with the issue at hand, it is necessary to understand what the term ‘same offence’ means and includes. The term ‘same offence’ in simple language means, where the offences are not distinct and the ingredients of the offences are identical. Where there are two distinct offences made up of different ingredients, the embargo under Article 20 of the Constitution of India, has no application, though the offences may have some overlapping features. The crucial requirement of Article 20 is that the offences are the same and identical in all respects, vide State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 .” The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the offences involved in this case as well as six different cases are one and the same hence, the continuation of this criminal miscellaneous petition will amount to double jeopardy. Hence, it is submitted that F.I.R. arising out of Pakur (T) P.S. Case No. 151 of 2006, corresponding to G.R. No. 406 of 2006 and other consequential orders and proceedings arising out the said F.I.R. be quashed. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. arising out of Pakur (T) P.S. Case No. 151 of 2006, corresponding to G.R. No. 406 of 2006 and other consequential orders and proceedings arising out the said F.I.R. and submits that six FIRs have been registered in connection with six different offences committed on six different dates, relating to 6 different works and on six different places. Hence, the petitioner has deliberately not enclosed the FIR of rest of the cases except the Pakur P.S. Case No. 149 of 2006 and Pakur P.S. Case No. 149 of 2006 was in relation to the offences committed in respect of the work connected with Special Maintenance Work of C.S. Office and Male Ward and 200 feet P.C.C. road construction, the agreement number of which work was 106, F-2/2005-06 whereas the present F.I.R. relates to an entirely different work of Special Maintenance Work of Blood Bank, Malaria Ward and T.B. Ward and the agreement number of which is 105, F-2/05-06. It is then submitted that, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the present FIR was in connection with the said offences. Learned Spl. P.P. further submits that there is no dispute regarding the settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.P. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Kerala (supra) but the said settled principle of law is applicable when the subsequent FIR or the subsequent trial took place for the same offence and not for different offence but here as it is crystal clear that the offences are not same offences and relates to different agreement and different works and at different places, merely because the petitioner is a history sheeter, being involved in the misappropriation and committing breach of trust of huge amount of public money in several different projects; certainly, he cannot be absolved of the criminal liability in respect of other subsequent offences for being convicted in one offence. Hence, it is 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, so far as the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.P. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Kerala (supra) is concerned, therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has categorically mentioned that the principle of double jeopardy is applicable only in respect of trial of same offence that in other words means the offence is not distinct and the ingredients of the offences are identical. 8. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case and after going through the materials in the record, since the petitioner filed the copy of the FIR of only one case in addition to the present FIR, it is crystal clear that the offences relating to Pakur P.S. Case No. 149 of 2006 are distinct offences then the offences involved in this case as the said offences of the Pakur P.S. Case No. 149 of 2006 is in relation to the work of Special Maintenance Work of C.S. Office and Male Ward and 200 feet P.C.C. road construction, the agreement of which were different and separate and distinct and FIR of this case relates to the work of Special Maintenance Work of Blood Bank, Malaria Ward and T.B. Ward and the agreement is separate and distinct. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the ratio of T.P. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Kerala (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case as the offences of this case are distinct then the offences of other cases. 10. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case where the F.I.R. arising out of Pakur (T) P.S. Case No. 151 of 2006, corresponding to G.R. No. 406 of 2006 and other consequential orders and proceedings arising out the said F.I.R. be quashed. 11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.