Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a matrimonial dispute between the appellant, Parteek Bansal, and respondent No. 3, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, who married in March 2015. The complainant, respondent No. 2 (father of respondent No. 3), lodged a complaint at Hisar, Haryana on 10.10.2015, which was registered as FIR No. 19/2015 under Section 498A IPC on 17.10.2015. Five days later, on 15.10.2015, the complainant lodged another complaint at Udaipur, Rajasthan, on the same allegations, which was registered as FIR No. 156/2015 on 01.11.2015. The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Rajasthan High Court to quash the second FIR, but the High Court dismissed it on 06.03.2017, erroneously holding that the Udaipur complaint was prior in time and that the Rajasthan Police was unaware of the Hisar proceedings. Meanwhile, the trial at Hisar concluded, and the appellant was acquitted on 02.08.2017 as the complainant and victim did not appear to depose. The Supreme Court noted that the complaint at Udaipur explicitly mentioned the earlier complaint at Hisar, so the High Court's finding of ignorance was incorrect. The Court held that allowing a second FIR on identical allegations after acquittal would be an abuse of process, especially given the respondents' conduct of not appearing in the first trial and opposing quashing. The Court quashed the second FIR and imposed costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- on respondent No. 2, with 50% to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and 50% to the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Abuse of Process of Law - Second FIR on Same Allegations - Sections 482, 300, 177, 461 Cr.P.C. - The appellant sought quashing of FIR No. 156/2015 registered at Udaipur on the ground that it was a second FIR on the same set of allegations as FIR No. 19/2015 at Hisar, which had already resulted in acquittal. The Supreme Court held that allowing two parallel proceedings on identical allegations would be an abuse of process, especially when the complainant and victim did not appear in the first trial. The Court quashed the second FIR with costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Paras 7-12). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Territorial Jurisdiction - Effect of Acquittal - Sections 177, 300 Cr.P.C. - The respondents argued that the Hisar court lacked territorial jurisdiction, making the acquittal void. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the respondents had participated in the Hisar proceedings without objection and did not seek transfer. The Court held that the acquittal stands and cannot be collaterally challenged (Paras 6, 11). C) Criminal Procedure Code - Imposition of Costs - Misuse of Legal Process - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The Court imposed costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the complainant for filing multiple complaints and not appearing in the first trial, thereby wasting judicial time. The costs were directed to be deposited with the Supreme Court Registrar, with 50% to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and 50% to the appellant (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a second FIR on the same set of allegations, after the first FIR has been tried and resulted in acquittal, is liable to be quashed as an abuse of the process of law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned order of the High Court quashed. FIR No. 156/2015 dated 01.11.2015 at Women Police Station, Udaipur quashed with costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be deposited with the Registrar of the Supreme Court within four weeks. Upon deposit, 50% to be transmitted to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and 50% to the appellant.
Law Points
- Second FIR on same set of allegations is abuse of process of law
- Quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Territorial jurisdiction not a bar when earlier FIR already tried and resulted in acquittal
- Imposition of costs for misuse of legal process
