JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the F.I.R. being Saraidhela P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that this F.I.R. has been lodged in respect of the same occurrence for which earlier Saraidhela P.S.Case No.144 of 2019 has been registered. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the Saradihela P.S. Case No.144 of 2019 was registered upon the written application submitted by the informant of that case namely Md. Ekramul Ansari, with the allegation that the petitioners were forcibly making the brother of the informant namely Sonu Ansari to do the marble work in their house. The petitioners told the deceased to join the naked wires of the motor. When the deceased went to join the wires, the petitioners switched on the motor, by which the deceased sustained electric shock and fell inside the safety tank and died. The present F.I.R. being Saraidhela P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 has been instituted on the basis of the written application of the same person being Md. Ekramul Ansari alleging therein that the co-accused Nasim Ansari took the deceased- Sonu Ansari to work in the house of the petitioners. The petitioners by using force, told the deceased- Sonu Ansari to join the naked wires. Sonu Ansari refused to do so; but the petitioners along with the co-accused person namely Md. Nasim Ansari forced the deceased to join the wires. The deceased went to join naked wires and the petitioners deliberately switched on the motor, by which the deceased sustained electric shock and fell down in a safety tank. He was admitted to P.M.C.H. where he died. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the F.I.R. of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as this is the second F.I.R., for the same cause of action, in respect of which Saraidhela P.S. Case No.144 of 2019 has already been registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the F.I.R. of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as this is the second F.I.R., for the same cause of action, in respect of which Saraidhela P.S. Case No.144 of 2019 has already been registered. It is further submitted that the police after investigation of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.144 of 2019, has submitted Final Form and did not send up the petitioners for trial and the same was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad but no protest petition was filed in the said case. It is next submitted that the co- accused Md. Nasim Ansari who faced the trial in connection with Saraidhela P.S. Case No.144 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No.1463 of 2020, was acquitted vide judgment dated 26.09.2023. Hence, it is submitted that continuation of criminal proceedings of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 against the petitioners, will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in this Writ Petition (Cr.), be allowed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in this Writ Petition (Cr.) but fairly submits that for the self-same occurrence, the F.I.R. in respect of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.144 of 2019 was lodged and this case has also been lodged for the self-same occurrence. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that 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-12 of which reads and 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) therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that if multiple First Information Reports by the same person against the same accused are not 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.Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law. 7. In the case of T.T. Antony vs. 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. 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) therein 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 Cr.P.C. or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakash & Others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292 , paragraph-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) has also 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 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. 9. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that for the self-same alleged occurrence in respect of which Saraidhela P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 has been registered; earlier for the self-same allegation, Saraidhela P.S. Case No.144 of 2019 was also registered. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the F.I.R. of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the continuation of the criminal proceeding of the same against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings including the F.I.R. being Saraidhela P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 be quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the F.I.R. being Saraidhela P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 is quashed and set aside. 12. In the result, this Writ Petition (Cr.), stand allowed. 13. In view of disposal of the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), the interim order granted vide order dated 20.03.2024, is vacated. 14. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.