A second FIR on similar allegations does not constitute a cognizable offence if it lacks fresh cause of action and may lead to an abuse of the judicial process.

ORDER :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of criminal case No. 256/2019 arising out of FIR No. 545/2018 registered at Police Station Mahuwa, District Dausa for alleged offence under Section 498A of IPC .

2. It is stated that marriage of petitioner with complainant took place on 17.06.2010 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Ceremonies however, after sometimes, on account of marital discord between the parties one FIR No. 204/2017 was registered by the complainant against the petitioner on 23.09.2017 at Police Station Raini, District Alwar for alleged offences under Sections 498A & 406 of IPC . It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner along with his family members have caused physical as well as mental cruelty upon the complainant for demand of dowry. Details of dowry articles were also given in the FIR and it was specifically mentioned that for not satisfying the demand of dowry, the complainant was thrown out of matrimonial home by the petitioner on 25.03.2017 thereafter, despite repeated counseling, the behaviour of petitioner and his family members did not improve and they did not agree for keeping the complainant at matrimonial home.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to earlier FIR No. 204/2017, investigation was conducted by the police authorities and during investigation, entire dowry articles have been recovered by the police authorities and charge- sheet has been filed against the petitioner. Thus, for the allegations leveled in the said FIR No. 204/2017 for offences under Sections 498A, 406 of IPC , the petitioner is facing trial before the competent criminal court.

4. It is further submitted that thereafter another FIR No. 545/2018 has been lodged at Police Station Mahuwa, District- Dausa, however, bare perusal of the contents of FIR would not constitute any cognizable offence whatsoever against the petitioner. In the second FIR lodged against the petitioner lodged on 17.12.2018, not a single incident has been narrated by the complainant to show that after lodging the earlier FIR on 23.09.2017, the petitioner has ever demanded dowry from the complainant, nor were there any allegations with regard to committing cruelty by the petitioner upon the complainant after lodging first FIR dated 23.09.2017.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also indicated that even the contents of first FIR and second FIR are self contradictory. In first FIR, the allegations have been leveled by the complainant even against the parents of the petitioner leveling specific accusations that they were also demanding dowry from the complainant and for not satisfying such demand, she was dealt with cruelty even by the parents of the petitioner. Whereas, in the second FIR, it has been stated that the relations of the complainant with the parents of the petitioner are good; however, the petitioner has not been maintaining his parents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner is already facing trial pursuant to allegations leveled in first FIR relating to demand of dowry and criminal breach of trust; then, the second FIR with a same cause of action and by narrating no new incident is not maintainable and the petitioner cannot be forced to face vexatious and frivolous trial pursuant to such second FIR No. 545/2018.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the instant criminal misc. petition and submitted that the FIR was lodged in the year 2018 thereafter, the police authorities have conducted investigation and have also filed ch