1. This petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. being Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 147/2018, dated 22.08.2018 and also for quashing of the entire proceeding arising out of that case, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur.

2. Initially, Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 146/2018 has been lodged alleging therein that on the eve of Bakrid for maintaining law and order, the informant who happens to be Block Development Officer cum Circle Officer, Maheshpur was deputed as Reserve Magistrate at Maheshpur police station and on 22.08.2018 at about 10:15 A.M., officer Incharge of the said police station received some information regarding slaughtering of bovine animals in the village of Dangapara. After that, the informant and the other police officials went to that village for taking necessary steps against that information. After that they reached there and found that there was slaughtering of bovine animals and distribution of meat among the villagers. After some inquiry they knew that the slaughtering of animals doing by them at the behest by Moulvi then officials has started taking action, taken photographs and confiscated the item i.e head, skin, bone with teeth, blood lying on the ground and about 10 kg of meat of the above bovine animals etc. During this, around 200 person male or female attacked upon them/officials with lathi danda, bricks stone and deadly weapon resulted officials got injured they had retreat due to less force. If they had not retreated from there, the members of the agitated mob could have resorted to murderous action. Somehow they reached back Maheshpur police station with confiscated item after that they received some secret information that the imams of mosque of Maheshpur police station's villages and other area, propagating anti-national slogans through loudspeaker and after announcement, person gathered in large number and encircled the Maheshpur police station because they confiscate the meat of Bakrid festival and stating that we have to take revenge from the police and repeat the incident of Kaliyachak (West Bengal).

3. Thereafter, Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 147/2018 has been lodged alleging therein that on the eve of Bakrid for maintaining law and order, the informant who happens to be Block Development Officer cum Circle Officer, Maheshpur was deputed as Reserve Magistrate at Maheshpur police station and on 22.08.2018 at about 10:15 A.M., the information was received from dialing no. 100 that bovine animals are being slaughted at Agriculture Science Centre in the village Dangapara and after receiving information from Officer In-charge, Maheshpur the informant along with other officials and also police force and Chaukidar proceeded for verification and taking necessary action to the village Dangapara and while they reached to the village Dangapara they saw that the bovine animals are being slaughted and the fleshes of animals are being distributed among the villagers and in meanwhile the Sub-Divisional Officer, Maheshpur also reached at the place of occurrence and after making enquiry, it was disclosed that on saying of Moulbi, the bovine animals have been slaughted and the photography of the place of occurrence was started and the seizures list of articles were made during which about 200 persons including male and female being armed with lathi, bricks and deadly weapons assembled at the place of occurrence and by creating disturbance, the mob attacked upon them and as a result of which the Police Inspector and one Hawaldar were injured and the information of the aforesaid incident was given to the Senior Officers. It was further stated by the informant that the secret information was received that the villagers of Sohibi, Makdumpur, Dangapara, Kanjhara, Silampur, Tetulia, Chaptura and Englishpara by raising anti-national slogan surrounded the police station and in the meantime the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police of Pakur reached and thereafter thousand of persons of Muslim community by making unlawful assembly and also being armed with deadly weapons and fire arms started to throw bricks and stone upon the police force and also started firing and used bomb and as a result of which the Deputy Commissioner including Inspector and other officials sustained injuries and having no options for dispersing mob, tear gas was used and even thereafter the mob remain intact and thereafter when the mob became violent the 7 round firing was made by the police force and upon which 10 persons were caught who disclosed their name and were arrested and other injured persons having sustained bullet injury lying to side of road were also arrested and several motorcycles were also seized from the place of occurrence.

4. Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the occurrence dated 22.08.2018, initially Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 146/2018 has already been lodged in view of the above facts. He further submits that for the link of the same case, another F.I.R being Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 147/2018 has been lodged for the occurrence dated 22.08.2018. He further submits that in both the FIRs, the date of occurrence is 22.08.2018. He also submits that the present case has also been instituted on the allegation which is subject matter of Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 146/2018 and charge-sheet has been submitted. He submits that second FIR being Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 147/2018 is consequent FIR of Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 146/2018. He also submits that since second FIR is consequential FIR, all the charge-sheet submitted in Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 147/2018 may be merged in Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 146/2018.

5. Mr. Chandra, learned counsel for the State submits that both the cases are of the same day, however allegations are different.

6. Looking into the contents of Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 146/2018 and Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 147/2018, it is crystal clear that for the occurrence of 22.08.2018, both FIRs. have been registered. In Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 146/2018, the allegations are that the cows were being slaughted in the school in question and in consequence of that, certain people have tried to agitate before the concerned police station and for that Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 147/2018 has been lodged. Thus, it is crystal clear that both the cases are inter-linked with the crime. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah V. C.B.I.; [ (2013) 6 SCC 348] [LQ/SC/2013/382] wherein at paragraphs 38 and 60, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"38. Mr Raval, learned ASG, by referring T.T. Antony [(2001) 6 SCC 181 [LQ/SC/2001/1369] : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] [LQ/SC/2001/1369] submitted that the said principles are not applicable and relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case as the said judgment laid down the ratio that there cannot be two FIRs. relating to the same offence or occurrence. The learned ASG further pointed out that in the present case, there are two distinct incidents/occurrences, inasmuch as one being the conspiracy relating to the murder of Sohrabuddin with the help of Tulsiram Prajapati and the other being the conspiracy to murder Tulsiram Prajapati - a potential witness to the earlier conspiracy to murder Sohrabuddin. We are unable to accept the claim of the learned ASG. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid proposition of law making registration of fresh FIR impermissible and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution is reiterated and reaffirmed in the following subsequent decisions of this Court : (1) Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash [(2004) 13 SCC 292 [LQ/SC/2004/1015] : 2005 SCC (Cri) 211] , (2) Babubhai v. State of Gujarat [ (2010) 12 SCC 254 [LQ/SC/2010/883] : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 336] [LQ/SC/2010/882] , (3) Chirra Shivraj v. State of A.P. [ (2010) 14 SCC 444 [LQ/SC/2010/1296] : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 757 [LQ/SC/2010/1296] : AIR 2011 SC 604 [LQ/SC/2010/1296] ] , and (4) C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. [ (2010) 9 SCC 567 [LQ/SC/2010/900] : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1402] In C. Muniappan [(2010) 9 SCC 567 [LQ/SC/2010/900] : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1402] this Court explained the "consequence test" i.e. if an offence forming part of the second FIR arises as a consequence of the offence alleged in the first FIR then offences covered by both the FIRs. are the same and, accordingly, the second FIR will be impermissible in law. In other words, the offences covered in both the FIRs. shall have to be treated as a part of the first FIR.

60. In view of the above discussion and conclusion, the second FIR dated 29-4-2011 being RC No. 3(S)/2011/Mumbai filed by CBI is contrary to the directions issued in judgment and order dated 8-4-2011 by this Court in Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat [ (2011) 5 SCC 79 [LQ/SC/2011/532] : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 526] and accordingly the same is quashed. As a consequence, the charge-sheet filed on 4-9-2012, in pursuance of the second FIR, be treated as a supplementary charge-sheet in the first FIR. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the claim of both the parties and it is for the trial court to decide the same in accordance with law. Consequently, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 149 of 2012 is allowed. Since the said relief is applicable to all the persons arrayed as accused in the second FIR, no further direction is required in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 5 of 2013."

7. Considering that the second FIR is consequent FIR of first FIR for the alleged offence and in that view of the matter, the judgment passed in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (supra) is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

8. In view of the above judgment passed in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (supra), subsequent FIR is contrary to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings of F.I.R. being Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 147/2018, dated 22.08.2018, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur is quashed. As a consequence, charge-sheet submitted in Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 147/2018 shall be treated as supplementary charge-sheet in first FIR being Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 146/2018.

9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of.

10. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit and claim of both the parties. It is open to the learned trial court to decide the case, in accordance with law.