ORDER By this Court - The entire criminal proceeding of Kotwali (S. N) P.S case no.336 of 2006 including the order dated 27.6.2007 passed by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken, is being sought to be quashed on the ground that earlier for the same set of offence, F.I.R had been lodged, allegation of which was found to be false during investigation and thereby final form exonerating the petitioner from the accusation was filed which was accepted. 2. Mr. Monoj Tandan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the opposite party no.2-complainant, who has claimed to be wife of the petitioner but, in fact, the petitioner has never married her, rather she happens to be a widow and has been withdrawing family pension on account of death of her husband from the State Bank of India, Panki Branch, Palamau wherein a certificate has been filed by the petitioner stating therein that she has not married anyone whereas statement has been made in the F.I.R that she has married this petitioner on 16.8.2003 which itself gets falsified. 3. In this regard it was further submitted that relationship in between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 is that of an Advocate and the clintess and taking advantage of this situation, she filed a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Sukhdeonagar P.S. on 28.4.2004 stating therein that after being married with this petitioner she was subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of demand of Rs.1 lac. Upon such written complaint, Kotwali (S. N) P.S case no.209 of 2004 was registered under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police after investigating the case did find the allegation to be false and accordingly, submitted final form which was accepted by the court. Upon such written complaint, Kotwali (S. N) P.S case no.209 of 2004 was registered under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police after investigating the case did find the allegation to be false and accordingly, submitted final form which was accepted by the court. When the final form was submitted, another written report was lodged by the opposite party no.2 alleging therein the same allegation of demand of dowry and also subjection to cruelty, upon which a case was registered as Kotwali (S. N) P.S. case no.336 of 2006 under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in which case charge sheet was submitted, upon which court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 494 of the Indian Penal Code, though earlier the police had not found the allegation of demand of dowry and subjection to cruelty to be true and therefore, the court committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence as the court has taken cognizance of the offence on the second F.I.R which was never permissible under the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure to be lodged, in view of the decision rendered in a case of T.T.Antony vs. State of Kerala and others [ (2001) 6 SCC 181 ] and hence, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed. 4. As against this, opposite party no.2 appeared in person and submitted that she is a legally wedded wife of the petitioner from whom she does have a child, presently aged about 6 years and there have been number of documents to establish that she had married the petitioner, who along with his family members started subjecting her to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of demand of money. Under this situation, she had earlier filed a case in the year 2004 which she did not pursue for the reason that she was requested in writing by the petitioner to withdraw that case. 5. Under this situation, she had earlier filed a case in the year 2004 which she did not pursue for the reason that she was requested in writing by the petitioner to withdraw that case. 5. It was further pointed out that the case which was lodged in the year 2006 has been fond to be true and therefore, charge sheet has been submitted, upon which cognizance has been taken under Sections 498(A) and 494 of the Indian Penal Code which in the facts and circumstances stated above, never warrants to be quashed. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 in person and on perusal of the record, I do find that earlier on filing written complaint alleging therein about the demand of dowry and subjection to cruelty, a case was registered under Section 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations which had been made in the first information report were found to be false and thereby final form was submitted which seems to have been accepted by the court. While the matter was pending on submission of the final form, another written complaint almost on the same allegation which was there in the first information report was filed which was registered as Kotwali (S.N) P.S case no.336 of 2006 under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police having investigated the matter did find the allegation under Section 498(A) to be true and at the same time, the police also found the case as that of under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, upon which cognizance of the offence has been taken under Section 498(A) and also 494 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The police having investigated the matter did find the allegation under Section 498(A) to be true and at the same time, the police also found the case as that of under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, upon which cognizance of the offence has been taken under Section 498(A) and also 494 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. So far the order taking cognizance of the offence under Section 498(A) is concerned, that appears to be bad as cognizance of the offence has been taken on the basis of final form submitted in the second F.I.R whereas on the same allegation, when the first information report had been lodged, the allegation with respect to Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code was found to be false and that under the scheme as framed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, second F.I.R is not permissible where the substance of the allegation is the same and similar on which earlier F.I.R had been lodged. 8. In this respect, I may refer to a case of T.T.Antony vs. State of Kerala and others (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that if the gravamen of the charges in two F.I.Rs -the first and the second - is in truth and substance the same, registering the second F.I.R and making fresh investigation and forwarding report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will be irregular and the court cannot take cognizance of the same. Therefore, that part of the impugned order whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, that is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed. 9. However, so far that part of the order under which cognizance of the offence has been taken under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. that never appears to be illegal as the police having investigated the matter did find the case as that of Section 494 whereas the case which has been lodged in the year 2004 had never been registered under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it cannot be said that said offence was also the subject matter of earlier F.I.R. 10. Therefore, it cannot be said that said offence was also the subject matter of earlier F.I.R. 10. Under this situation, I do not find any illegality with that part of the order under which cognizance of the offence has been taken under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Thus, this application is allowed but in part. Application partly allowed.