A) Abstract / Headnote

This case involves allegations of abuse of legal procedures through the filing of multiple complaints on similar grounds. The complainant initiated two FIRs, one in Hisar and another in Udaipur, alleging offenses under Sections 498A, 406, 384, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Supreme Court considered whether the second FIR constituted an abuse of process under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Court concluded that the subsequent FIR filed in Udaipur based on identical allegations as the Hisar FIR was an abuse of process. It further imposed costs to deter misuse of legal machinery.

Keywords:

Multiple FIRs, Section 482 CrPC, Abuse of Process, Quashing, Intention to Harass

B) Case Details

• Judgment Cause Title: Parteek Bansal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
• Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2167 of 2024
• Judgment Date: April 19, 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.
• Author: Vikram Nath, J.
• Citation: [2024] 5 S.C.R. 74 : 2024 INSC 324
• Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 498A, 406, 384, 420, and 120B of IPC; Section 482 of CrPC
• Judgments Overruled: None
• Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Abuse of Process

C) Introduction and Background of the Judgment

The appellant challenged the validity of an FIR filed in Udaipur after a similar complaint had been filed in Hisar. The primary issue revolved around whether filing multiple FIRs on the same allegations constituted an abuse of legal process. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition to quash the second FIR. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

D) Facts of the Case

1. The appellant and Respondent No. 3, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, married in March 2015.
2. The complainant (Respondent No. 2) filed an FIR in Hisar on October 10, 2015, alleging offenses under Section 498A IPC.
3. A second FIR was lodged in Udaipur on October 15, 2015, based on the same allegations.
4. The Hisar Police submitted a report under Section 173(2) of CrPC, and trial commenced against the appellant.
5. The appellant was acquitted by the Hisar court after the complainants failed to appear during the trial.
6. Despite the acquittal, the investigation into the Udaipur FIR persisted, leading the appellant to seek quashing of the Udaipur FIR under Section 482 CrPC.

E) Legal Issues Raised

1. Whether the second FIR constituted an abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC.
2. Whether the High Court erred in holding the Udaipur complaint was filed prior to the Hisar complaint.

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

1. The second FIR was a duplicate of the first FIR filed in Hisar, involving identical allegations.
2. The High Court erred by incorrectly stating the chronology of complaints and FIRs.
3. The complainant misused her position as a police officer to harass the appellant by filing multiple complaints.
4. Judicial precedents, including T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181], prohibit multiple FIRs for the same cause of action.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

1. The Hisar court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the alleged offenses occurred in Udaipur.
2. The Udaipur complaint contained additional details warranting separate investigation.
3. The appellant’s petition was an attempt to evade accountability for the alleged offenses.

H) Related Legal Provisions

1. Section 482 CrPC: Inherent powers of High Court to prevent abuse of process.
2. Section 498A IPC: Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband.
3. Section 406 IPC: Criminal breach of trust.
4. Section 420 IPC: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
5. Section 120B IPC: Criminal conspiracy.

I) Judgment

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Filing multiple FIRs for the same set of allegations constitutes an abuse of process.
2. The complainants misused legal procedures to harass the appellant, reflecting mala fide intentions.
3. The High Court’s conclusion about the sequence of complaints was contrary to evidence.

b. Obiter Dicta

1. Judicial resources must not be wasted on parallel investigations arising from identical complaints.
2. Litigants misusing state machinery for personal vendettas must face consequences.

c. Guidelines Issued

1. Filing multiple FIRs on identical allegations should be avoided.
2. Courts must ensure that subsequent complaints are examined for overlapping issues to prevent misuse of judicial resources.

J) Conclusion and Comments

The Supreme Court rightly emphasized the importance of preventing abuse of judicial processes. The case sets a precedent for dealing with frivolous and repetitive litigation. The imposition of costs reinforces accountability for misuse of the legal system.

K) References

1. T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181].
2. Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police [(2004) 8 SCC 100].
3. Prem Chand Singh v. State of UP [(2020) 3 SCC 54].
4. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.