ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) for quashing/setting aside the FIR vide Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief facts of the case is that Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 has been registered, basing upon the written report submitted by the informant of the case, alleging therein that the petitioner used to look after the stone mines and crusher business of the father of the informant. On 21.10.2023 at about 3 to 4 PM, the petitioner committed theft of Rs.1,80,000/- cash and 8 bhar of gold. The informant could not know about the same immediately and after coming to know about the same, the informant filed the written report by suppressing the fact that for the self-same allegation, his father has also earlier filed written report basing upon which Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.238 of 2023 has been registered, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 380, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as this is the second FIR in respect of the self-same occurrence, hence, this FIR is hit by the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case Naresh Sharma & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in W.P. (Cr.) No.200 of 2024 wherein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tarak Das Mukherjee & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others passed in Criminal Appeal No.1400 of2022, dated 23.08.2022, para-12 of which reads as under:- “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. 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) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that if multiple First Informant Reports by the same person against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same set of facts and allegations, as the same will result in the accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings, for the same alleged offence. In that case, this court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 , para-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 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. 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) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that a 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. In that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakash & Others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292 , para-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 countercase 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) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the said principle of law 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 of Criminal Procedure 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, it will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in fact, this is an improvement from the earlier FIR as in the earlier FIR being Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.238 of 2023, it was alleged that the petitioner on 21.10.2023 at about 12 Noon committed theft of Rs.3,00,000/- and 10 bhar of jewelry. Now in this FIR being Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 the informant has kept the date of commission of theft the same, but has modified the time from 12 Noon as mentioned in the earlier FIR, to 3-4 PM and the amount of cash and jewelry stolen has been reduced to Rs.1,80,000/- cash and 8 bhar of gold. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Writ Petition (Cr.) be allowed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer made in this Writ Petition (Cr.) and fairly submits that for the self-same occurrence, the FIR being Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.238 of 2023 was earlier lodged by the father of the present informant and this case being Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 has been lodged for the self-same occurrence. 8. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law, as has already been referred to above in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgment that it has time and again been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that a second FIR for the self-same occurrence is not maintainable, being hit by the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, admittedly the allegations made in this FIR as well as the earlier FIR is same regarding the manner of occurrence, date of occurrence and the place of occurrence; the only improvisation is the time of occurrence which was earlier mentioned as 12 Noon and in the present FIR, it has been mentioned as 3-4 PM and the amount of stolen property has been reduced as though in the FIR of Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.238 of 2023, it was alleged that the petitioner committed theft of Rs.3,00,000/- in cash and 10 bhar jewelry without mentioning what kind of jewelry was stolen and in the present FIR, the amount stolen has been reduced by alleging that the petitioner committed theft of Rs.1,80,000/- in cash and 8 bhar gold. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the FIR of Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 is a second FIR in respect of the same occurrence for which Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.238 of 2023 was registered. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the FIR of Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and continuation of the criminal proceeding in connection with the said FIR being Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside. 11. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside.