JUDGMENT : (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) : Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the First Information Report of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 involving the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and all other further proceedings in relation to the said case which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. The F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 has been registered on 10.12.2020 alleging that while the petitioner was posted as Sub-Post Master in the OCC Post Office from July, 2018 to March 2020, he was involved in committing criminal breach of trust by sanctioning loan in 74 (seventy four) different R.D. Accounts amounting to Rs.25,53,400/- in furtherance of common intention with Smt. Suman Agrawal, MPKBY, her representative Shri Shubham Gupta and Sri Chitranjan Kumar- the then SPM, OCC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court towards Annexure-3 at page-39-60 of the brief which is the F.I.R. of Kotwali P.S. Case No.99 of 2020 and submits that the said F.I.R. of Kotwali P.S. Case No.99 of 2020 was registered much before registration of this F.I.R. for the self-same allegation in respect of the same set of facts and allegations. Hence, the F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 , paragraph Nos. 25 and 27 of which read as under:- “25. Where the police transgresses its statutory power of investigation the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and this Court in an appropriate case can interdict the investigation to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. 27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that subsection (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case [ (1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.” (Emphasis supplied) Hence, it is submitted that the First Information Report of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 and all other further proceedings in relation to the said case which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside. 5. 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 and all other further proceedings in relation to the said case which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and submits that since the investigation of the case is going on so, the specific allegation against the petitioner can be known only after the investigation of the case is over. Hence, it is submitted that at this nascent stage, the prayer to quash and set aside the First Information Report of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 and all other further proceedings in relation to the said case which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi ought not be allowed and this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, perusal of both the F.I.Rs. i.e. the F.I.R. of Kotwali P.S. Case No.99 of 2020 and the F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 reveal that in Kotwali P.S. Case No.99 of 2020; Suman Agrawal is the informant who has been cited as an accused in the said Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020. In the F.I.R. of Kotwali P.S. Case No.99 of 2020, Suman Agrawal has made the self-same allegation alleging illegal withdrawal of money from the R.D. Account holders to the tune of Rs.29,62,400/- but in the F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020, only a lesser sum of Rs.25,53,400/- is alleged to have been sanctioned by the petitioner. In Kotwali P.S. Case No.99 of 2020, the petitioner has not been cited as an accused in the formal F.I.R. but during the course of the investigation, his involvement is found out then he can be arrayed as an accused in that case also. In Kotwali P.S. Case No.99 of 2020, besides the aforesaid amount of Rs.29,62,400/-, further illegal withdrawal to the tune of Rs.22,11,320/- has also been alleged. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tarak Dash Mukharjee & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2121 paragraph Nos. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tarak Dash Mukharjee & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2121 paragraph Nos. 9, 11 and 12 of which read and under:- “9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants who submitted that both the first and second FIRs are based on the same set of facts and the same cause of action. Relying upon decisions of this Court in the case of Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004) 13 SCC 292 and T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 the learned counsel submitted that registration of second FIR is a gross abuse of process of law. 11. We have perused both the FIRs. The respondent no.4 is the first informant in both the FIRs and the same are based on the same agreement for sale executed on 14th June 2006. The allegation made in both the FIRs is the same. The allegation is that by practising forgery and fraud, the appellant no.1 has sold the subject property to appellant no.2 thereby deceiving the respondent no.4. The second FIR, which is the subject matter of challenge, was registered nearly four years after the first FIR was registered. The challenge to the first FIR is pending before the High Court. These aspects have been completely overlooked by the High Court in the impugned judgment. 12. If multiple First Information Reports by the same person against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same set of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same alleged offence. Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the act of the registration of such successive FIRs on the same set of facts and allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the act of the registration of such successive FIRs on the same set of facts and allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The settled legal position on this behalf has been completely ignored by the High Court.” (Emphasis supplied) that if multiple First Information Reports by the same person against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same set of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same alleged offence. Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law. 7. Now, after going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 is the second F.I.R. in respect of the same occurrence for which Kotwali P.S. Case No.99 of 2020 has been registered much prior to the registration of the said Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292 has held as under in paragraph No. 17:- “17. It is clear from the words emphasised hereinabove in the above quotation, this Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [ (2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] has not excluded the registration of a complaint in the nature of a counter-case from the purview of the Code. In our opinion, this Court in that case only held that any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same accused will amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code. This prohibition noticed by this Court, in our opinion, does not apply to counter-complaint by the accused in the first complaint or on his behalf alleging a different version of the said incident.” (Emphasis supplied) that the registration of the second F.I.R. for the self-same occurrence is prohibited and this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 and all other further proceedings in relation to the said case which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi will tantamount to abuse of process of law and in the interest of justice the said F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 and all other further proceedings in relation to the said case which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi which is the second case in respect of the self-same occurrence, be quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, the F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 and all other further proceedings in relation to the said case which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 9. It is made clear that if during the investigation of the case of Kotwali P.S. Case No.99 of 2020 any material comes to array the petitioner as an accused of that case, then this judgment will not be a bar in the process of the same. 10. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.