JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Satgawan P.S. Case No.05 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 9 6 , 69, 61(1), 127(2), 83, 340(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 9 /11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Koderma against the petitioners. 3. The brief fact of the case is that Satgawan P.S. Case No.05 of 2025 has been registered on the basis of the written report dated 09.01.2025 submitted by the victim claiming therein that she is aged about 18 years. The petitioner no.1 being the co-villager and the petitioners no.2 made her elope with him by enticing her by promising to marry her. The petitioner no.1 took the victim to Indore in the State of Madhya Pradesh and kept her in a hotel for five days and in the meanwhile he forcibly established physical relationship with her. The father of the victim intimated her abduction to the Mukhiya of the village and the Mukhiya of the village along with villagers went to Indore and brought the victim to her house. The petitioner no.8- who is the brother-in-law of the petitioner no.1 and to whom the informant has referred to as her Nandosi kept her locked in village Karchota and the father-in-law of the victim being the petitioner no.1 and mother-in-law of the victim being the petitioner no.3 and Sister-in-law (Nanad) of the victim being the petitioner no.9; in a well-planned conspiracy enhanced the age of the victim in her Aadhar Card and made her a major lady and forcibly got the victim to marry the petitioner no.1 and did not allow the victim to go to her parents place. After some days of the marriage, the petitioners along with other villagers assaulted the informant and treated her with serious physical and mental cruelty in respect of which she has instituted Satgawan P.S. Case No.32 of 2024 and she has further stated that in her matriculation certificate, her date of birth has been mentioned as 01.01.2007. After some days of the marriage, the petitioners along with other villagers assaulted the informant and treated her with serious physical and mental cruelty in respect of which she has instituted Satgawan P.S. Case No.32 of 2024 and she has further stated that in her matriculation certificate, her date of birth has been mentioned as 01.01.2007. On 05.01.2025, the petitioner nos.2, 3 and 9 drove the informant out from her house after assaulting her and the petitioner no.1 forcibly administered medicine to the victim for miscarriage of her child. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that on similar allegations, the victim has already instituted Satgawan P.S. Case No.32 of 2024, the copy of FIR of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 of this Cr.M.P. It is next submitted that in the said FIR of Satgawan P.S. Case No.32 of 2024 which was instituted on 02.05.2024, the victim has stated her age to be 19 years. The said case was instituted for the offences punishable under Section 3 23, 498A, 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is next submitted that it is the second FIR in respect of the self-same occurrence, hence, this FIR is hit by the provisions of Section 162 of Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that in order to harass the petitioners, for the self-same occurrence, a second case has been instituted with improvisation of the allegations made, hence, it is submitted that continuation of this entire criminal proceeding in connection with Satgawan P.S. Case No.05 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 9 6 , 69, 61(1), 127(2), 83, 340(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 9 /11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that this FIR contains some additional allegations, hence, it is submitted that the same ought not to be quashed at this nascent stage. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tarak Das Mukherjee & Ors. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tarak Das Mukherjee & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 1400 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022, paragraph no.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. 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. 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. 7. Further, 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 no. 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. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 , paragraph no. 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. 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) reiterated that 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 police report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. 8. 8. Again, 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 no. 17 of which reads and 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) reiterates the settled 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 will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. 9. 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 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 by observing thus in 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) 10. Now, coming to the facts of the case, admittedly, the informant-victim instituted Satgawan P.S. Case No.32 of 2024 therein she has categorically stated that she married the petitioner no.1 and there is no allegation of any fraudulent act having been committed in respect of her Aadhar Card since the investigation of Satgawan P.S. Case No.32 of 2024 is going on. The victim is free to make her statement in that case and if necessary, additional offences can be added to the FIR of Satgawan P.S. Case No.32 of 2024. The victim is free to make her statement in that case and if necessary, additional offences can be added to the FIR of Satgawan P.S. Case No.32 of 2024. In this FIR also, the victim admits that the petitioner no.1 is her husband and other petitioners are relatives of the petitioner no.1. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the FIR of Satgawan P.S. Case No.05 of 2025 is the second FIR in respect of the self-same occurrence, hence, the continuation of the same is not permissible in law as the same will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Satgawan P.S. Case No.05 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 9 6 , 69, 61(1), 127(2), 83, 340(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 9 /11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Satgawan P.S. Case No.05 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 9 6 , 69, 61(1), 127(2), 83, 340(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 9 /11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 13. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.