Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 363
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Parteek Bansal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2167 of 2024 (Special Leave to Petition (Crl.) No. 2520 of 2017)
Decided On : 19-04-2024
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rishi Malhotra, AOR Mr. Jaydip Pati, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Apurv Singhvi, Adv. Mr. Anuj Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Joshi, Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR Mr. Uday Gupta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shivani Lal, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Dave, Adv. Mr. M. K. Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Sanam Singh, Adv. Mr. Harish Dasan, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv. Ms. Yogamaya M. G., Adv. Mr. Hiren Dasan, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Second FIR cannot be lodged for same allegation.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 498A, 406, 384, 420 and 120(B) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cruelty, criminal breach of trust, extortion, cheating and conspiracy – Second FIR – In complaint lodged at Udaipur, allegations were same as in complaint at Hisar and additionally it was stated in complaint at Udaipur that complainant had earlier lodged a complaint at Hisar – Investigating agency at Udaipur was well aware of complaint on similar allegations being lodged at Hisar – Impugned proceedings are nothing but abuse of process of law – High Court fell in error in dismissing petition of appellant – Respondents had been misusing their official position by lodging complaints one after other – Their conduct of neither appearing before Trial Court at Hisar nor withdrawing their complaint at Hisar, would show that their only intention was to harass appellant by first making him face a trial at Hisar and then again at Udaipur – Impugned order passed by High Court quashed and impugned proceedings registered at Udaipur quashed with costs of Rs.5,00,000/-. (Paras 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal assails correctness of judgement and order dated 06.03.2017 passed by Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 3259 of 2015 dismissing said petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing FIR No. 156 of 2015, Women Police Station, Udaipur under Sections 498A, 406, 384, 420 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Sole ground on which quashing was sought was that this was a second FIR on same set of allegations made by complainant after two weeks of lodging first FIR being FIR No. 19 of 2015 under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC.
Findings of Court:
Investigating agency at Udaipur was well aware of complaint on similar allegations being lodged at Hisar. High Court again fell in error in observing that Rajasthan Police was not aware about earlier proceedings initiated at Hisar. High Court and Rajasthan Police were expected to at least read complaint carefully.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Vikram Nath, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgement and order dated 06.03.2017 passed by the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 3259 of 2015 dismissing the said petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,1[In short, “Cr.P.C.”] for quashing the FIR No. 156 of 2015, Women Police Station, Udaipur under Sections 498A, 406, 384, 420 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code, 1860,2[In short, “IPC”].
3. At the outset, it would be relevant to mention that the sole ground on which the quashing was sought was that this was a second FIR on the same set of allegations made by the complainant after two weeks of lodging the first FIR being FIR No. 19 of 2015 under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station, Hisar, Haryana.
4. The relevant facts are briefly stated hereunder :
(i). The appellant and respondent No.3 came in contact with each other in June, 2014 through internet.
(ii). The complainant (respondent No.2) who is the father of respondent No.3 had visited the appellant in Udaipur, who is a Chartered Accountant based in Hisar, for proposal of marriage of his daughter (respondent No.3) who was at that time posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police at Udaipur, Rajasthan.
(iii). On 18.02.2015 engagement took place and thereafter on 21.03.2015, the marriage was solemnised at Udaipur. On 10.10.2015, the respondent No.2 filed a complaint at Police Station, Hisar, Haryana under Section 498A IPC etc. The said complaint was registered at Police Station Hisar on 17.10.2015 as FIR No. 19 of 2015 under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC.
(iv). In the meantime, respondent No.2 submitted another complaint on 15.10.2015 i.e. five days after the first complaint at the Police Station, Udaipur in the State of Rajasthan on the same set of allegations as in the previous complaint. This complaint came to be registered on 01.11.2015 as FIR No. 156 under Section 498A/506 IPC etc.
(v). In the first FIR No. 19 of 2015 along with the appellant other family members were also roped in. However, after further investigation, a Police Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted in December, 2015 only against the appellant under Section 498A IPC. Based on the said Police Report, the Magistrate took cognizance and the trial proceeded and a case was registered as Crl. Case No. 232-I of 2015, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hisar.
(vi). In the meantime, the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Rajasthan High Court for quashing of the second FIR No. 156 of 2015 registered at Udaipur. By the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed the said petition on 06.03.2017 primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that the complaint at Udaipur was prior in point of time than the complaint in Hisar. The second ground was that the Rajasthan Police was not aware of the earlier proceedings/complaint before the Hisar Police and as such the Udaipur Police should be at liberty to investigate the said complaint made at Udaipur.
(vii). Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present petition was preferred before this Court on which notice was issued on 03.04.2017, and this Court also stayed further investigation in the FIR No. 156 dated 01.11.2015 P.S. Women Police Station, Udaipur, until further orders. As such the said FIR has not been investigated so far.
(viii). After the impugned order was passed, the trial at Hisar was concluded, and the Trial Court vide judgement dated 02.08.2017 acquitted the appellant. Copy of the said judgment has been placed along with additional documents (I.A. No. 118201 of 2021).
(ix). A perusal of the judgment and order of acquittal reflects that the prosecution examined ASI Sheela Devi Investigating Officer as PW-1 who proved the Police Papers, Head Constable Raja Ram as PW-2, who proved the documents relating to marriage etc., Jaipal Singh, DSP as PW-3, who also proved some of the police papers, and Sub Inspector Mane Devi as P
