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 and set aside the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021 and to set aside the order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No.2777 of 2022 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that this F.I.R. is the second F.I.R. and for the self-same occurrence, prior to registration of Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021, Bank More P.S. Case No.338 of 2019 was registered and the investigation of that case is going on at present. 3. The brief facts of the case is that Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021 has been registered on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant- Mahesh Pradhan alleging therein that though the petitioner No.1 resigned from the post of Director of the company in the name and style of Pre-Stressed Udyog (India) Private Limited, on 06.03.2017 and thus was not authorized thereafter to do the transaction on behalf of the company, he impersonated himself as the Director of the company and withdrew Rs.13,75,000/- on 13.03.2017 through a cheque from New Delhi Branch of Indian Overseas Bank of the company and thereby committed the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. 4. The allegation against the petitioner No.2 is that though the petitioner No.2 resigned from the post of Director of the said company on 02.05.2017 yet he by impersonating himself as the Director of the company and showing incorrect address of the company, got registered a power of attorney being power of attorney No. IV/537 in the Registry Office, Dhanbad and on the basis of the said power of attorney, he got executed several sale-deeds to sell various properties registered in the name of the said company; including the sale-deed No.2176 dated 20.05.2020 registered at Dhanbad. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made in the F.I.R. of Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021 arises out of the same set of transactions i.e. the sell-purchase agreement of 2017 which was the genesis of the earlier F.I.R. of Bank More P.S. Case No.338 of 2019 lodged by the informant against the petitioners. It is next submitted that the allegations made in Bank More P.S. Case No.338 of 2019 is that the petitioners entered into a sell-purchase agreement and sold the said company namely of Pre-Stressed Udyog (India) Private Limited to the informant and his brother and it was alleged that the petitioners by suppressing the material facts by way of cheating, though have taken the entire money for selling the company and are blackmailing the informant. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the case-diary of Bank More P.S. Case No.338 of 2019 and submits that during the investigation of the said case, it has come in paragraph-2 of the case-diary which is the re-statement of the informant of that case that in his said re-statement recorded on 04.12.2019, the informant himself stated in the Investigating Officer of the case, that the petitioner No.2 after resigning from the post of Director of the company, by citing himself to be the Director of the company in the Registry Office and by claiming himself to be the Director, has sold several plots and also executed a power of attorney being Power of Attorney No.IV/537 illegally. It is next submitted that during the course of investigation of the said Bank More P.S. Case No.338 of 2019 before institution of Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021, on 05.07.2020 the Investigating Officer was directed in the supervision remarks at serial No.15 to verify the allegations that the petitioner No.1 that on 31.03.2017 by posing himself to be the Director of the company, he transferred Rs.13,75,000/- to the bank account of the petitioner No.2 from the bank account of the said company, with the Indian Overseas Bank, Defence Colony Branch, New Delhi. It is next submitted that on 07.07.2020 as mentioned in paragraph-57 of the case-diary of Bank More P.S. Case No.338 of 2019, that the petitioner No.2 has executed several sale-deeds including the sale-deed No.2176 dated 20.05.2020 in favour of one Srimati Kumari Archana, through his power of attorney holder by posing himself to be the Director of the company namely of Pre-Stressed Udyog (India) Private Limited. It is next submitted that in paragraph-60 of the case-diary of Bank More P.S. Case No.338 of 2019, on 15.07.2020, it has been mentioned that vide cheque No.945247 dated 31.03.2017, Rs.13,75,000/- has been transferred by the petitioner No.1 to the account of the petitioner No.2 which has been withdrawn by the petitioner No.2 on 04.04.2017. Hence, it is submitted that no new transaction has been averred in this F.I.R. of Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021. Therefore, it is submitted that the F.I.R. of Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021 is the second F.I.R. in respect of the same occurrence for which Bank More P.S. Case No.338 of 2019 was registered. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 paragraph-27 of which reads as under:- “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 sub-section (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. 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) and submits that since the F.I.R. of Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021 has been filed in connection with the same and connected cognizable offences alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR investigation is under way, this is a fit case wherein in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the F.I.R. of Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021 be quashed. 8. 8. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has referred to the consequent test as has been explained in the case of C. Muniappan & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567 i.e. if an offence forming part of the second F.I.R. arises as a consequence of the offence alleged in the first F.I.R. and then the offences covered by both the F.I.Rs are the same and accordingly the second F.I.R. will be impermissible in law or in other words, the offence covered in both the F.I.Rs shall have to be treated as part of the first F.I.R. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner also draws attention of this Court to paragraph-58.3 of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another (supra) which reads as under:- “58.3. Even after filing of such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, there is no need to register a fresh FIR, he is empowered to make further investigation normally with the leave of the court and where during further investigation, he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports which is evident from sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code. Under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of the Code, only the 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 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla & others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435 paragraph-10 of which reads as under:- “10. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla & others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435 paragraph-10 of which reads as under:- “10. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that the right to life and liberty shall not be taken away except by due process of law. Permitting multiple complaints by the same party in respect of the same incident, whether it involves a cognizable or private complaint offence, will lead to the accused being entangled in numerous criminal proceedings. As such, he would be forced to keep surrendering his liberty and precious time before the police and the courts, as and when required in each case. As this Court has held in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah [Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 309], such an absurd and mischievous interpretation of the provisions of the CrPC will not stand the test of constitutional scrutiny, and therefore cannot be adopted by us.” and submits that permitting multiple complaints by the same party in respect of the same incident, whether it involves a cognizable or private complaint offence, will lead to the accused being entangled in numerous criminal proceedings which is not the mandate of the law. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292 paragraph-17 of which reads as under:- “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) and submits that as the investigation in regard of the allegations made in the F.I.R. of Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021 has already started in connection with Bank More P.S. Case No.338 of 2019, hence, Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021 is prohibited in law. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this respect also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tarak Dash Mukharjee & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2121. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prem Chand Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2020) 3 SCC 54 paragraph-11 of which reads as under:- “11. It is, therefore, apparent that the subject-matter of both the FIRs is the same general power of attorney dated 2-5-1985 and the sales made by the appellant in pursuance of the same. If the substratum of the two FIRs are common, the mere addition of Sections 467, 468 and 471 in the subsequent FIR cannot be considered as different ingredients to justify the latter FIR as being based on different materials, allegations and grounds.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that since substratum of the two F.I.Rs are common, the mere addition of certain offences in the subsequent F.I.R cannot be considered as different ingredients to justify the later F.I.R as being based on different materials, allegations and grounds. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 12. Learned P.P. appearing for the State and the learned senior counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the opposite party No.2 that if in both the F.I.R.s, the parties are similar but the offences are separate and distinct and having been committed in the same transactions; then the subsequent FIR is maintainable. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the opposite party No.2 that if in both the F.I.R.s, the parties are similar but the offences are separate and distinct and having been committed in the same transactions; then the subsequent FIR is maintainable. Learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab & Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441 paragraph-67 of which reads as under:- “67. The second FIR, in our opinion, would be maintainable not only because there were different versions but when new discovery is made on factual foundations. Discoveries may be made by the police authorities at a subsequent stage. Discovery about a larger conspiracy can also surface in another proceeding, as for example, in a case of this nature. If the police authorities did not make a fair investigation and left out conspiracy aspect of the matter from the purview of its investigation, in our opinion, as and when the same surfaced, it was open to the State and/or the High Court to direct investigation in respect of an offence which is distinct and separate from the one for which the FIR had already been lodged.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the second F.I.R. would be maintainable when there were not only different versions but also when new discovery is made on factual foundations. The discoveries may be made by the police authorities at a subsequent stage. The discovery about a larger conspiracy can also surface in another proceeding and it is submitted that this is a case of such nature where the F.I.R. of Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021 is maintainable. 13. Learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Awadesh Kumar Jha @ Akhilesh kumar Jha & Another vs. State of Bihar reported in (2016) 3 SCC 8 paragraph-23 of which reads as under:- “23. From a bare perusal of the second FIR, it is abundantly clear that both the appellants have furnished wrong information to the police as to their names, father's name and address during the course of investigation made on the first FIR. From a bare perusal of the second FIR, it is abundantly clear that both the appellants have furnished wrong information to the police as to their names, father's name and address during the course of investigation made on the first FIR. This Court is of the view that the offences alleged to have been committed by them are mentioned in the second FIR, which offences are distinct offences committed by both the appellants and the same have no connection with the offences for which the first FIR was registered against them. Therefore, for the reason stated supra, the contention urged by the learned counsel on behalf of both the appellants that instead of institution of the second FIR for the said offences, a further investigation as provided under sub-section (8) to Section 173 CrPC should have been done by the investigating officer on the ground of they being the part of same transaction with offences registered under the first FIR, is wholly untenable in law and liable to be rejected.” and submits that as the offences committed by the petitioners in Bank More P.S. Case No.338 of 2019 and Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021 are separate and distinct offences, hence, on this score also, the F.I.R. of Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021 is not hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 14. Learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Sreekumar vs. State of Kerala & Others reported in (2018) 4 SCC 579 paragraph-31 of which reads as under:- “31. In other words, there is no prohibition in law to file the second FIR and once it is filed, such FIR is capable of being taken note of and tried on merits in accordance with law.” and submits that there is no prohibition in law to file the second F.I.R and once it is filed, such F.I.R is capable of being taken note of and tried on merits in accordance with law but such observation was made in P. Sreekumar vs. State of Kerala & Others (supra) in a case in which the second F.I.R. was the counter-case filed. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 15. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 15. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been categorically mentioned in paragraph-27 of the T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Others (supra) that a second F.I.R. is maintainable for a counter-case because in paragraph-27 itself in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Others (supra) makes a categorical exception by using the word “not being a counter-case.” The said principle has also been reiterated in the case of Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Others (supra). 16. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that during the investigation of Bank More P.S. Case No.338 of 2019, police came to know that the offences committed by the petitioners i.e. withdrawal of Rs.13,75,000/- from the account of the company concerned maintained with the Indian Overseas Bank by transferring the same to the petitioner No.2 and execution of the sale-deeds including the sale-deed bearing No.2176 dated 20.05.2020. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that by the time the F.I.R. of Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021 was instituted the investigation in respect of the allegations made therein was already going on in Bank More P.S. Case No.338 of 2019. Further, keeping in view the allegations made in the Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021, as already mentioned above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, it can very well be said that the said offences were the consequence of the offence as alleged in Bank More P.S. Case No. 338 of 2019. Thus when these facts are put to the continuation test as has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of C. Muniappan & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), this Court arrives at the conclusion that the allegations made in the F.I.R. of Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021 are the offences committed in continuation to the allegations made in the Bank More P.S. Case No.338 of 2019. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court the F.I.R. of Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021 is the second F.I.R. in respect of which the F.I.R. of Bank More P.S. Case No.338 of 2019 has been registered. Therefore, the same is hit by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, continuation of F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding relating to the Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021, will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. of Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021 be quashed and set aside. 17. Accordingly, the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021 and the order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Bank More P.S. Case No.106 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No.2777 of 2022, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 18. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.