ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. Accused No.2 in CC No.27/2015 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, has filed this Criminal Revision Petition, challenging dismissal of discharge petition filed by him in the said case, as per order dated 26.02.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.1/2019. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and Adv. Suvin R. Menon, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae by my learned Predecessor to assist this Court. The report filed by the Amicus Curiae was also perused. 3. The facts of this case run as follows: As on 14.12.2007, FIR No.423/2007 was registered by Mukkam Police, alleging that the accused persons therein, who are the accused in the present crime, committed offences punishable under Sections 120B , 420, 511 of 465, 466, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) without the junction of public servants. After investigation, Annexure A1 final report was filed, alleging commission of the said offences and when the accused persons appeared before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thamarassery, as per Annexure A2 order dated 03.03.2011, all the accused persons were discharged by the learned Magistrate by invoking power under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) on the finding that the materials produced by the prosecution did not disclose prima facie case. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, thereafter, the Vigilance registered VC No.03/2012/KKD on 28.07.2012 and the same led to the filing of Annexure A3 final report, inclusive of the 1 st accused, who is the village man among the accused in the earlier final report. In the final report filed by the Vigilance as on 19.11.2015, the allegation is that the accused persons committed offences punishable under Sections 167 and 120B of IPC as well as under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’ for short) 4. The main challenge raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that in respect of every subsequent information of the same occurrence or incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, no 2nd FIR could be registered, and consequently, there should not be any fresh investigation. The main challenge raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that in respect of every subsequent information of the same occurrence or incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, no 2nd FIR could be registered, and consequently, there should not be any fresh investigation. In this connection, the learned counsel placed decision of the Apex Court in Antony v. State of Kerala , reported in 2001 KHC 655 . In the said decision, in paragraph No.21, the Apex Court held as under: 21. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of S.154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of S.154 Cr.P.C. 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. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in S.173 of the Cr.P.C.” 5. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, since on the same sets of allegations, investigation was carried out by registering an initial FIR and the same culminated in discharge of the accused, including the revision petitioner, the prosecution of the same accused on the same set of facts as per Annexure A3 final report stemmed from a 2 nd FIR is illegal and unwarranted. Therefore, he deserves discharge and accordingly, he sought interference in the order impugned. 6. Opposing this contention, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, in this matter, a complaint had been lodged before the Vigilance as early on 08.10.2007. However, the Vigilance did not register FIR until 27.07.2012, and the present FIR was registered on 28.07.2012. In the meantime, Mukkam Police registered FIR, which led to filing of Annexure A1 final report. 6. Opposing this contention, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, in this matter, a complaint had been lodged before the Vigilance as early on 08.10.2007. However, the Vigilance did not register FIR until 27.07.2012, and the present FIR was registered on 28.07.2012. In the meantime, Mukkam Police registered FIR, which led to filing of Annexure A1 final report. When the accused therein including the revision petitioner filed discharge petition before the trial court, as per Annexure A2, the trial court discharged all of the accused, as already pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 7. In the report submitted by the Amicus Curiae, after making earnest efforts and referring to several decisions and statutory provisions relevant to the legal issue, it was ultimately opined that the power to conduct further investigation is not curtailed. Therefore, the investigating agency could invoke the power under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C., as held in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another , reported in (2019) 17 SCC 1. Under the heading, ‘Supreme Court on Multiple FIRs’, the learned Amicus Curiae highlighted decisions of the Apex Court in detail, viz., Ram Lal Narang Etc. Etc vs. State of delhi (Admn), reported in AIR 1979 SC 1791 , M.Krishna v. State of Karnataka, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 247 , T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala , reproted in 2001 (6) SCC 181 , Kari Choudhary v. Most.Sitadevi report AIR 2002 SC 441, Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292, Vikram v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 362, Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441 , Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254 , Chirra Shivraj v. State of A.P. reported in (2010) 14 SCC 444 , Shiv Shanker Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 130 , Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348, Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. reported in ( 2013) 6 SCC 384, Krishna Lal Chawla and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435 , Pattu Rajan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2019) 4 SCC 771 Varshaben Kantilal Purani Vs. vs. State of U.P. and Ors, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435 , Pattu Rajan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2019) 4 SCC 771 Varshaben Kantilal Purani Vs. The State of Gujarat and Ors, reported in (2019) 11 SCC 774 and Manoj Kumar vs. State of Uttrakhand, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 667 , while pointing out that the 2 nd FIR on the same set of facts is not legally permissible. 8. This Court had the occasion to consider the question as to registration of multiple FIRs and this Court while addressing the same question, in the decision reported in 2025 KER 2032 in Gargian Sudeeran vs. State of Kerala , reported in 2025 KLT OnLIne 1075, after referring the decisions of the Apex Court in Abhishek Singh Chauhan V. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 608 , in Tarak Dash Mukharjee & Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 731 , in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Others, reported in 2010 KHC 4608 and in Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors V. State of U.P. & ANR, reported in 2021 LiveLaw (SC) 145, in paragraph No.10, held as under: “10. On perusal of the decisions referred hereinabove, the legal position is emphatically clear on the point 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, the same would result in getting the accused entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same offences. Therefore, the registration of such multiple first information reports is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same would not stand in the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. In such cases, while permitting investigation in one FIR registered initially, other FIRs shall be quashed. At the same time, registration of first information reports by the same person against the same accused for entirely different offence/s, not covered by the first information report earlier registered, is within the orbit of law and such FIRs cannot be quashed.” 9. In such cases, while permitting investigation in one FIR registered initially, other FIRs shall be quashed. At the same time, registration of first information reports by the same person against the same accused for entirely different offence/s, not covered by the first information report earlier registered, is within the orbit of law and such FIRs cannot be quashed.” 9. On perusal of the factual aspects involved and the legal position, it could be gathered that in this case, based on an earlier FIR registered, Annexure A1 final report was filed on the same sets of facts, which ended in discharge of the accused therein. Even though one more accused was added as public servant in Annexure A3 final report, it is submitted by both sides that now he is no more. As far as accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, they had already been discharged in the earlier case. Since the 2 nd FIR was registered on the same sets of facts which led to filing of Annexure A3 final report, the accused persons in the said case, could not be proceeded based on the 2 nd FIR and final report, arising from the same occurrence and same set of facts. Therefore, the plea of discharge, moved by the revision petitioner, is liable to succeed. As a sequel thereof, contra finding entered by the special judge to dismiss the discharge petition which led to the order impugned would deserve interference. 10. Before parting, the earnest efforts taken by Adv. Suvin R. Menon in placing all relevant decisions on the matter in issue and enlightening this Court on the legal position are appreciated and placed on record. In the result, this revision petition succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the revision petitioner/2 nd accused in C.C.No.27/2015 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, stands discharged from the said offences. Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the Special Court, forthwith.