1. This criminal miscellaneous case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash all further proceedings in VC.No.5/2019/PKD of VACB, Palakkad. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above crime.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the VACB. Perused the relevant documents.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, earlier, on same set of facts, another FIR was registered as Crime No.48/2019 of Thrithala Police Station dated 06.02.2019, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 465 and 471 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the investigation thereof ended in filing of final report on 25.05.2022 reporting the case as 'Undetected' because of non-availability of the signatures of one Ponneri Abdul Rehiman, whose signatures were alleged to be forged by the accused for making appointments in Dr.K.B menon Higher secondary school Thrithatla, Palakkad district, where the accused was a teacher.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since already one FIR was registered, the second FIR on the same sets of facts is barred and he has placed decision of the Apex Court in T.T.Antony v. State of Kerala and Others, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 as well as decisions of this Court in Ahammed Kutty v. State of Kerala, reported in (2025) SCC OnLine Ker 7331 and Nikhil and Others v. State of Kerala and Another, reported in (2012) SCC OnLine 28350 in support of this contention.

5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor did not combat the legal position. However, according to him, the final report in the earlier FIR was re-opened and the VACB has been investigating the allegations in both crimes together. Order dated 10.10.2024 issued by the State Police Chief in this regard has been placed.

6. In Ahammed Kutty’s case (supra), in paragraph No.8, this Court held as under:

                  “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.”

7. On perusal of the two FIRs registered, it could be gathered that in both FIRs, the same sets of allegations raised, though offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’) are also seen incorporated in the second FIR. Since the law does not permit registration of a second FIR on the same sets of facts, the second FIR would no lie in the eye of law. At the same time, there is no dispute that further investigation can be proceeded in respect of a crime, despite having filed a final report in the form of refer report or a case referred as undetected and during further investigation, the powers of the investigating officer are wide enough to investigate upon offences which were omitted to be investigated during the initial investigation or the offences made out subsequently on getting further materials, either oral or documentary or both, to justify filing of an additional or supplementary final report. Therefore, keeping the liberty of the VACB to further investigate upon the earlier registered FIR, viz., Crime No.48/2019 of Thrithala Police Station, after re-numbering the case as that of VACB, including the offences under the PC Act, quashment of the second FIR is liable to succeed.

                  In the above line, this criminal miscellaneous case stands allowed. All further proceedings based on Crime No.5/2019/PKD of VACB, Palakkad, as against the petitioner, stand quashed with direction to the VACB to carry out further investigation in crime No.48/2019 of Thrithala Police Station after re-numbering the same as a VACB crime in respect all the offences including the offence under the PC Act.