( 2026:JHHC:11325 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2541 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2541 of 2017 ------ Ashok Kumar Sharma @ Ashok Sharma, son of Surya Kant Sharma, resident of village- Dumarjore, P.O.- Chiksia, P.S.- Chas (M), District- Bokaro … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Smt. Sangeeta Sharma, wife of Ashok Kumar Sharma and daughter of Shri Durga Prasad Sharma, residing at Qtr. No: K2-6, Outer Road, New Market, TELCO Colony, Town-Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.-TELCO, District-East Singhbhum … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ashim Kr Sahni, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Shreya Harsh Mishra, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with the prayer, to quash the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking ( 2026:JHHC:11325 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2541 of 2017 cognizance dated 03.06.2011 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2010 arising out of Telco P.S. Case No. 274 of 2010 by which the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is next fixed to 27.04.2026 for consideration of framing of charge. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the husband of the informant, treated her with cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry of Rs. 15 lakhs. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Telco P.S Case No. 274 of 2010 and took investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police submitted chargesheet and on the basis of the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 07.04.2010, the Opposite Party No. 2 - informant filed complaint case which was registered as C/1 Case No. 854 of 2010 against the petitioner. The said case is in the stage of argument on the merits of the case, consequent upon closure of the evidence from both the sides. It is then submitted that for the self-same occurrence, the informant has lodged two cases; this case as well as the C/1 Case No. 854 of 2010. ( 2026:JHHC:11325 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2541 of 2017 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore reported in 2025 INSC 248, and submits that therein in the facts of that case, when the High Court found that two FIRs were indeed in regard to the same offence and, therefore, not maintainable but the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India found that the scope of two FIRs were distinct, as the second FIR pertains to the larger issue of widespread corruption in the concerned department and, therefore, is much larger in its scope than the previous FIR, hence, the order passed by the High Court was quashed and set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Balmicky Kumar @ Balmicky Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand passed in Cr.M.P. Case No. 25 of 2026 dated 09.01.2026 and submits that therein, this Court relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of C. Muniappan & Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567 wherein it has been held that, if an offence forming part of the second FIR arises as consequence of the offence alleged in the first FIR; then the offences covered by both the FIRs are the same and accordingly, the second F.I.R. will be impermissible. In the facts of that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of T.T Antony vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the second F.I.R. is ( 2026:JHHC:11325 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2541 of 2017 maintainable for a counter-case only. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P. be allowed. 8. The learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in this Cr.M.P. and submit that there is no dispute regarding the non-maintainability of the second F.I.R. It is next submitted that in this case, firstly, the subject matter of this F.I.R. and the complaint are different. Further, Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has laid down the procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence. It is next submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2010 and the C/1 Case No. 854 of 2010 was also lodged in the year 2010, but for the first time, in this Court, the petitioner has raised the plea, after eight years of registration of both the cases, that the complaint case and the police investigation are in respect of the same offence, but the petitioner in all these eight years has never approached the Court concerned in terms of Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. and having not done so, it is not open for the petitioner to claim before this Court that both the cases are in respect of the same occurrence. Moreover, since this is not a case where two FIRs have been registered, so, the ratio of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, it is submitted that the Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. ( 2026:JHHC:11325 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No.2541 of 2017 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that second F.I.R. in respect of the same occurrence is not maintainable, but the same principle is not applicable to a case where there is a complaint and a police investigation, in respect of the same occurrence because Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has laid down the procedure to be followed in such cases, which impliedly means that the complainant is not to be dismissed, merely because there is a police case in respect of the same offence. 10. Be that as it made; the perusal of the record reveals that the date of occurrence of the Telco P.S. Case No. 274 of 2010 is from 14.08.2010 to 15.08.2010. The date of occurrence of C/1 Case No. 854 of 2010 was from 11.05.2005. The C/1 Case No. 854 of 2010 having been filed on 07.04.2010, certainly, the said complaint cannot be in respect of the offence which took place between 14.08.2010 to 15.08.2010. 11. Under such circumstance, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding is to be quashed and set aside on the ground that this is the second F.I.R. when there is no first F.I.R. brought to the notice of this Court. More so, because the police investigated the case against the petitioner and found the same to be true and submitted charge sheet and basing upon the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance against the ( 2026:JHHC:11325 ) 6 Cr. M.P. No.2541 of 2017 petitioner and the petitioner has never approached the Court concerned in terms of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th of April, 2026 AFR/ Nandini Uploaded on 20/04/2026