[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Kumar Sharma @ Ashok Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:11325 )
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
------
PRESENT
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 )
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 )
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 )
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 )
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 )
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
