ORDER : Subodh Abhyankar, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR lodged at Crime No.105/2021 dated 19/03/2021, at Police Station Manak Chauk, Ratlam (M.P.) under Section 489-A, 489-C and 489-D of IPC. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR has been lodged by the complainant Sub Inspector Ayyub Khan, alleging that on 18/03/2021, he came to know through social media that Rahul S/o Krishnagopal Kasera and his wife Megha have been apprehended by the Bhuj Police (Gujrat) at police station Bhuj, for possessing fake currency notes, and he came to know through his source that both these persons were the residents of Kasera Bazar, Ratlam (M.P.), hence, he proceeded to search their house, and found incriminating material including HP printer, a laptop, pen-drive etc. as also 14 currency notes of denomination Rs.2,000/- and 14 notes of denomination Rs.500/- which were fake. Thus, the case was registered against these two persons at Ratlam at Crime No. 105/2021, who were already arrested by the Bhuj police in connection with Crime No. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the FIR is liable to be quashed only on the ground that the police at Bhuj had already registered the offence against the petitioners under the same provisions, and was investigating the matter in connection with possession of printing of fake currency notes. It is also submitted that Bhuj police had also asked Ratlam police for the certified copies of the seizer memos etc. as the seizer which was made by Ratlam police was essential in connection with the offence which was committed by the petitioners at Bhuj where they were found in possession of huge quantity of fake currency notes viz., 574 notes of 2,000/- denomination and 125 notes of Rs.500/- denomination. 4. as the seizer which was made by Ratlam police was essential in connection with the offence which was committed by the petitioners at Bhuj where they were found in possession of huge quantity of fake currency notes viz., 574 notes of 2,000/- denomination and 125 notes of Rs.500/- denomination. 4. Shri Rawat has also submitted that in Sessions Case No.83/2021, the Bhuj Court (5 th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj) has framed the charges against the petitioners on 24/08/2022, copies of the charges have also been filed on record, wherein charges under Section 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D and 120-B of IPC have been framed against the petitioners, whereas in connection with the present case at Ratlam, the 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam has also framed the charges on 12/06/2023 under Section 489-A, 489-C, 489-D read with Section 34 of IPC in Sessions Trial No.31/2023. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the petitioners would be facing the trial on the same allegations in two different Courts, clearly making it a case of double jeopardy which is prohibited under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. 5. In support of his submissions, counsel has relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India and others reported sa (2020) 14 SCC 12 , Anju Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. and another reported as (2013) 6 SCC 384 (para 14) and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. CBI and another reported as (2013) Cri. L.J. 2313 and Prateek Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported as 2024 Live Law (SC) 317 . Thus, it is submitted that the FIR lodged in the present case be quashed and consequently, the subsequent criminal proceedings be also quashed. 6. Counsel for the respondents/State, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out, however, it is not denied that Bhuj police station had also asked for the certified copies of the seizure memos etc. from the concerned police station at Ratlam, and the articles seized from the house of the present petitioners have been kept in the Malkhana at Ratlam. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed on record. 8. from the concerned police station at Ratlam, and the articles seized from the house of the present petitioners have been kept in the Malkhana at Ratlam. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed on record. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the case diary as also the charge sheet filed in the Court at Bhuj (Gujrat) vis-à-vis the charges framed against the petitioners in the Court at Ratlam, this Court finds that on the same set of allegations, which also forms part of allegations at Bhuj Court, the charges have been framed by Ratlam Court. 9. Admittedly, the fake currency notes were manufactured at Indore and were taken to Bhuj for their use in public, and the initial offence was registered at Bhuj only and the natural corollary would be that from Bhuj, the incriminating material has to be traced back to Indore. 10. Section 179 of Cr.P.C. also provides for offences triable where act is done or consequence ensues which reads as under:- “179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues:- When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.” 11. Thus, it is apparent that since the consequences have ensued at the jurisdiction at the Court of Bhuj, where the first FIR was lodged, the natural choice of the trial would be at Bhuj only. 12. At this juncture, it would also be fruitful to refer to the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in this regard in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India and others reported as (2020) 14 SCC 12 , the relevant para of the same read as under:- 31. The Court held that “there can be no second FIR” where the information concerns the same cognisable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognisable offences. This is due to the fact that the investigation covers within its ambit not just the alleged cognisable offence, but also any other connected offences that may be found to have been committed. This is due to the fact that the investigation covers within its ambit not just the alleged cognisable offence, but also any other connected offences that may be found to have been committed. This Court held that once an FIR postulated by the provisions of Section 154 has been recorded, any information received after the commencement of investigation cannot form the basis of a second FIR as doing so would fail to comport with the scheme of the CrPC . The court observed: “18…All other information made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the first information report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 CrPC. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an FIR and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of CrPC.” 32. This Court adverted to the need to strike a just balance between the fundamental rights of citizens under Articles 19 and 21 and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognisable offence. Adverting to precedent, this Court held: “27…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) 33. The Court held that barring situations in which a counter-case is filed, a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or connected cognisable offence would constitute an “abuse of the statutory power of investigation” and may be a fit case for the exercise of power either under Section 482 of the CrPC or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.” (emphasis supplied) 13. It is found that Bhuj Court at Gujrat has also framed charges in respect of the seizure which has been affected from the house of the petitioner at Ratlam, M.P. which include printer, pen-drive, fake currency notes etc., and same charges have also been framed at Ratlam, however, the additional charge of possession of huge amunt of currency notes has also been framed in the Court at Bhuj, which is not framed by the Ratlam Court. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition as continuation of the present trial would amount to double jeopardy which is not permissible under Article 20(2) of the Constitution. 14. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby allowed, and the FIR lodged at Crime No.105/2021 dated 19/03/2021 at Police Station Manak Chauk, Ratlam (M.P.) under Section 489-A, 489-C and 489-D of IPC is hereby quashed and as a natural corollary, subsequent proceedings including Court at Ratlam are also quashed. Since the articles seized in Ratlam have been kept in the Malkhana, at Ratlam, it is also directed that on the requisition made by the Bhuj Court, the same may be sent to the concerned Court at Bhuj for the purposes of the trial at Bhuj. 15. Accordingly, the Petition stands allowed and disposed of.