Jharkhand High Court
Arjun Sharma @ Arjun Prasad Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1125 of 2015
1.Arjun Sharma @ Arjun Prasad Sharma
2. Kunti Devi
3. Jai Prakash Sharma
4. Manorma Devi @ Manorma Sharma ...... Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Rina Sharma ...... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Md. Hatim, A.P.P.
4/Dated: 12/07/2022
On repeated calls, nobody appeared on behalf of O.P. No. 2. Learned
counsels for the petitioners and State are present.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. bearing Bokaro
Thermal P.S. Case No. 12 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 45 of 2015 pending
in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat.
3. F.I.R. has been lodged by the O.P. No. 2 alleging therein that the
marriage of O.P. No. 2 was solemnized on 12.05.2003 thereafter she went to her
matrimonial home but after some time, the accused persons started demanding
dowry and on non-fulfilment of the said demand the O.P. No. 2 was tortured by
the accused persons and lastly, the O.P. No. 2 was ousted from her matrimonial
home. It is further alleged that after compromise the accused persons again
started torture to the O.P. No. 2. The family members of the O.P. No.
2/complainant tried to pacify the matter but it went invain.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that informant had
lodged F.I.R. bearing Neredmet P.S. Case 409/2013 under sections 498(A) I.P.C.
and under section 3/4 D.P. Act. prior to filing of the present F.I.R for the same set
of occurrence. He further submits that allegations in both the cases are similar. He
submits that in both the cases chargesheet has been submitted and the matters
are still pending.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that chargesheet has been
submitted in both the cases.
6. From perusal of earlier F.I.R, it transpires that there is allegation of
demand of dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- and date of occurrence is 13.09.2013.
Contents of both the F.I.Rs. are similar. It is well settled that for the same set of
occurrence if two F.I.Rs are lodged earlier one will survive and later case will not
survive.
7. For the same set of occurrence two proceedings cannot be allowed
in the light of judgment in the case of " T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala"
reported in the case of (2001) 6 SCC 181.
8. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the Court finds that
contents of both the case are similar. To allow second F.I.R. to be continued
amounts to be abuse of process of law. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding in
connection with Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No. 12 of 2015, corresponding to G.R.
No. 45 of 2015, is hereby quashed.
9. This petition stands allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands
disposed of. Interim order dated 14.09.2015 is vacated.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
