Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Raj) 309

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Ishita Bhardwaj, D/o Shri Ashwini Bharadwaj - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6781 of 2021, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3581 of 2020
Decided On : 28-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Swadeep Singh Hore with Mr. Sahajveer Baweja
For the Respondent: Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP, Mr. N.K. Meena

The registration of a second report regarding the same incident is legally unsustainable and constitutes an abuse of judicial process. Criminal proceedings lacking essential ingredients of the charged offence and appearing to be a facade for personal vendettas are liable to be quashed under inherent powers.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154, 156, 173(2), 190, 192, 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 312, 313, 323, 341, 376, 384, 498A, 506 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Abuse of process of law.

(B) Second FIR - Registration of subsequent criminal charges for the same incident and the same offence—Permissibility—It is settled law that a subsequent complaint for the self-same incident and offence is impermissible and violative of constitutional protection—Such registration amounts to an abuse of the court's process. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16)

(C) Prima facie evidence - Requirement of basic ingredients of an offence—Criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue where the allegations lack the essential elements of the charged offences and clearly stem from collateral personal disputes—Without cogent material, charges under penal provisions cannot be sustained. (Paras 18, 20)

Facts of the case:
The case involves a petitioner accused of various criminal offences, where an initial complaint was lodged and subsequently withdrawn by the complainant, followed by a second iteration of the same complaint via a fresh formal report. A co-petitioner was additionally implicated in an offence related to the alleged administration of medicinal substances, despite the absence of evidence and the emergence of the allegation as a retort to a separate matrimonial conflict.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the allegations in the second report were identical to the previously withdrawn complaint. The court further noted that there was no prima facie basis for the charges levied against the co-petitioner, as the essential components of the alleged offence were not present in the record.

Issues: Whether the registration of a second report for the same transaction and same offence is legally sustainable and whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against an accused, in the absence of constitutive elements of the offence, warrants an exercise of inherent powers for quashing.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a subsequent report regarding the same incident constitutes an abuse of the statutory power of investigation and violates constitutional protections against being subjected to repeated, unwarranted police procedures. Furthermore, when allegations fail to satisfy the requirement of an offence and appear designed to target a party involved in a separate unrelated dispute, the interests of justice mandate the quashing of proceedings to prevent legal harassment.

Result: Petitions allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural consolidation based on supreme court directions for expedited disposal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties' contentions regarding the sustainability of the second fir and lack of evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. factual analysis of identical allegations and prior complaint withdrawal. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. doctrine barring registration of a second fir for the same offence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. applying legal criteria of abuse of process to the specific facts of the petitioners. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. final order quashing the criminal proceedings. (Para 21 , 22)

ORDER :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. The instant misc. petition is listed before this Court in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 773/2026, decided on 15.01.2026), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in various matters, interim orders have been passed in criminal revision petitions and petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as a result of which trial relating to serious offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, dowry death, etc., could not proceed and remained stalled/held up due to the passage of considerable time.

2. Directions have been issued to this Court and other High Courts to take up such like matters which are pending since long, on priority and decide the same expeditiously without deferring the hearings to subsequent dates.

3. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the instant petitions and since these petitions have been submitted against the very same impugned FIR No. 365/2020, registered with the Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, 341 & 384 IPC, therefore, with the consent of counsel for both the sides, final arguments have been heard together and these miscellaneous petitions are being decided by this common order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prosecutrix, i.e. respondent No.2 ‘AG’ is a major lady. She came in touch with the petitioner Yashraj Bhardwaj in the year 2018 and thereafter, they started residing together in a ‘live-in-relationship’ from 2018 to 2019. Counsel further submits that on account of some dispute between the parties, the prosecutrix ‘AG’ filed a complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner Yashraj Bhardwaj, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 384, 323, 342 & 506 IPC before the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur on 18.02.2020, wherein, it has been alleged that the petitioner Yashraj Bhardwaj developed physical relationship with the prosecutrix ’AG’ on the pretext of marriage. He further submits that during pendency of the aforesaid complaint, the prosecutrix ‘AG’ again stayed with the petitioner in Hotel Moti Mahal at Pushkar for two days i.e. on 27.02.2020 & 28.02.2020 and this fact is further fortified from the statement of an employee, said to be posted in the said hotel, recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Counsel further submits that the visitors’ register of the said hotel was also handed over to the Investigating Officer which indicates that the petitioner-Yashraj Bhardwaj and the prosecutrix ‘AG’ checked-in the hotel on 27.02.2020 and checked-out on 28.02.2020. He further submits that the petitioner-Yashraj Bhardwaj was not aware about filing of the aforesaid complaint by the prosecutrix against him. Thereafter, the impugned FIR was registered by the prosecutrix ‘AG’ with the Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur City (East) on 17.07.2020 with regard to the same allegations, which have been levelled in the aforementioned complaint filed by her against the petitioner-Yashraj Bhardwaj under Section 190 Cr.P.C. before the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

5. Learned counsel further submits that in the meantim