LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a second FIR can be registered on the same set of allegations after a first FIR has already been registered and investigated.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Parteek Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: April 19, 2024
Date of the Judgment: April 19, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 324
Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Can a person be subjected to multiple FIRs for the same set of allegations? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question, emphasizing the importance of preventing abuse of the legal process. This case revolves around a second FIR lodged on the same allegations after the first one was already under investigation. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The appellant, Parteek Bansal, and respondent No. 3, got in touch through the internet in June 2014. The complainant (respondent No. 2), father of respondent No. 3, visited the appellant in Udaipur for marriage proposal for his daughter. The engagement took place on 18.02.2015, and the marriage was solemnized on 21.03.2015 in Udaipur. On 10.10.2015, the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint at Police Station, Hisar, Haryana, under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). This complaint was registered as FIR No. 19 of 2015 on 17.10.2015. Subsequently, on 15.10.2015, the respondent No. 2 filed another complaint at Police Station, Udaipur, on the same allegations. This was registered as FIR No. 156 on 01.11.2015.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 2014 | Appellant and Respondent No. 3 contacted each other through the internet. |
| 18.02.2015 | Engagement of the Appellant and Respondent No. 3. |
| 21.03.2015 | Marriage solemnized in Udaipur. |
| 10.10.2015 | Complaint filed at Police Station, Hisar, Haryana under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| 15.10.2015 | Complaint filed at Police Station, Udaipur, Rajasthan, on the same allegations. |
| 17.10.2015 | FIR No. 19 of 2015 registered at Police Station, Hisar. |
| 01.11.2015 | FIR No. 156 of 2015 registered at Police Station, Udaipur. |
| December 2015 | Police Report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 submitted against the appellant in Hisar. |
| 06.03.2017 | Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition for quashing the second FIR. |
| 02.08.2017 | Trial Court at Hisar acquitted the appellant. |
| 19.04.2024 | Supreme Court quashes the second FIR and imposes costs. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the Rajasthan High Court to quash the second FIR (No. 156 of 2015) registered at Udaipur. The High Court dismissed this petition on 06.03.2017, primarily on two grounds: that the complaint at Udaipur was prior in time than the complaint at Hisar, and that the Rajasthan Police was unaware of the earlier proceedings at Hisar. Subsequently, the trial at Hisar concluded, and the Trial Court acquitted the appellant on 02.08.2017.
Legal Framework
The case involves the following legal provisions:
- ✓ Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
- ✓ Sections 498A, 406, 384, 420, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): These sections relate to offences of cruelty by husband or his relatives, criminal breach of trust, extortion, cheating, and criminal conspiracy, respectively.
- ✓ Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C.: This section deals with the police report after completion of investigation.
- ✓ Section 300 of the Cr.P.C.: This section deals with the principle of double jeopardy.
- ✓ Section 177 of the Cr.P.C.: This section deals with the ordinary place of inquiry and trial.
- ✓ Section 461 of the Cr.P.C.: This section deals with the irregularities which do not vitiate proceedings.
- ✓ Article 22 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- ✓ The appellant argued that the second FIR was an abuse of the process of law, as it was based on the same set of allegations as the first FIR.
- ✓ The appellant contended that the High Court erred in its findings that the complaint at Udaipur was prior in time and that the Rajasthan Police was unaware of the proceedings at Hisar.
- ✓ The appellant relied on the judgments in Prem Chand Singh vs. State of UP and T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors. to support his contention that a second FIR on the same set of allegations is not permissible.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- ✓ The respondents argued that the Court at Hisar had no territorial jurisdiction as the offence had been committed at Udaipur, and therefore, the judgment of acquittal delivered by the Hisar Court was void.
- ✓ The respondents contended that the complaint ought to have been examined and investigated by Rajasthan Police.
- ✓ The respondents relied on the judgment in Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. to support their argument that the Udaipur police should investigate the complaint.
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Second FIR is an abuse of process |
✓ Second FIR based on same allegations as first FIR. ✓ High Court erred in finding Udaipur complaint prior. ✓ Rajasthan Police aware of Hisar proceedings. |
✓ Hisar Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. ✓ Udaipur Police should investigate. ✓ Hisar Court acquittal is void. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the impugned proceedings (second FIR) are an abuse of the process of law.
- Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition of the appellant.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the second FIR was an abuse of process | Yes | The Court found the second FIR to be an abuse of process, given that it was based on the same set of allegations as the first FIR, and the respondents had misused their official position. |
| Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the quashing petition | Yes | The High Court erred in its findings about the timing of the complaints and the awareness of the Rajasthan Police, which were contrary to the records and admitted facts. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
Cases:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Prem Chand Singh vs. State of UP (2020) 3 SCC 54 | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to support the contention that a second FIR on the same set of allegations is not permissible. |
| T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181 | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to support the contention that a second FIR on the same set of allegations is not permissible. |
| Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 100 | Supreme Court of India | The Court noted that this case was relied upon by the respondents to argue that the Udaipur police should investigate the complaint. |
Legal Provisions:
| Authority | Brief on the provision | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. | The Court considered this section in the context of quashing the second FIR. |
| Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Deals with the police report after completion of investigation. | The Court considered this section to note the police report submitted in Hisar. |
| Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Deals with the principle of double jeopardy. | The Court considered this section in the context of the second trial. |
| Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Deals with the ordinary place of inquiry and trial. | The Court considered this section in the context of the territorial jurisdiction of the Hisar court. |
| Section 461 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Deals with the irregularities which do not vitiate proceedings. | The Court considered this section in the context of the validity of the proceedings at Hisar. |
| Article 22 of the Constitution of India | Deals with the protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. | The Court considered this article in the context of the arrest of the appellant. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | Second FIR is an abuse of process. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the second FIR was an abuse of the process of law. |
| Appellant | High Court erred in its findings. | Accepted. The Court found that the High Court had made errors in its findings regarding the timing of the complaints and the awareness of the Rajasthan Police. |
| Respondents | Hisar Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. | Rejected. The Court did not accept this argument, noting that the respondents had participated in the proceedings at Hisar without raising this objection. |
| Respondents | Udaipur Police should investigate. | Rejected. The Court found that the second FIR was not maintainable. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Prem Chand Singh vs. State of UP (2020) 3 SCC 54* and T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181* to support the contention that a second FIR on the same set of allegations is not permissible.
- The Court noted that Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 100* was relied upon by the respondents, but the Court did not find it persuasive in the context of the present case.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following:
- ✓ The misuse of official position by the respondents in lodging multiple complaints.
- ✓ The harassment caused to the appellant by initiating a second FIR on the same allegations.
- ✓ The fact that the respondents did not appear before the Trial Court at Hisar, wasting the Court’s time.
- ✓ The fact that the respondents did not withdraw their complaint at Hisar even after realizing that it was filed at a wrong place.
- ✓ The fact that the High Court had erred in its findings regarding the timing of the complaints and the awareness of the Rajasthan Police.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Misuse of official position | 30% |
| Harassment of the appellant | 30% |
| Wastage of court’s time | 20% |
| Errors by the High Court | 20% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The Court’s reasoning was as follows:
The Court rejected the argument that the Hisar Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, noting that the respondents had participated in the proceedings without objection. The Court also found that the High Court had erred in its findings regarding the timing of the complaints and the awareness of the Rajasthan Police. The Court concluded that the second FIR was an abuse of the process of law and quashed it.
The Court observed, “It is not denied by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that they did not lodge complaint at Hisar. They also did not file an application withdrawing their complaint on the ground that it was wrongly filed here or that the said complaint may be transferred to Udaipur for investigation as the offence was committed at Udaipur.”
The Court further stated, “Merely because she was a Police Officer, she first managed to get an FIR lodged at Hisar through her father, and thereafter she moved to her hometown at Udaipur and got another complaint lodged by her father within a week.”
The Court also noted, “In the facts and circumstances as recorded above, we are of the view that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had been misusing their official position by lodging complaints one after the other.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ A second FIR on the same set of allegations is generally not permissible.
- ✓ The Court emphasized the importance of preventing abuse of the legal process.
- ✓ The Court deprecated the practice of misusing state machinery for ulterior motives and causing harassment.
- ✓ The Court imposed costs on the respondent No. 2 to compensate the appellant.
Directions
The Supreme Court gave the following directions:
- ✓ The impugned order passed by the High Court was quashed.
- ✓ The impugned proceedings registered as FIR No. 156 of 2015 dated 01.11.2015, Women Police Station, Udaipur, were quashed.
- ✓ Costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs Only) were imposed on respondent No. 2.
- ✓ The costs were to be deposited with the Registrar of the Supreme Court within four weeks.
- ✓ Upon deposit, 50% of the amount was to be transmitted to the account of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, and the remaining 50% to the appellant.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a second FIR on the same set of allegations is not permissible and is an abuse of the process of law. This reinforces the principle that a person cannot be subjected to multiple FIRs and trials for the same offence. The judgment also highlights the importance of preventing the misuse of official positions and the harassment of individuals through the legal process.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the second FIR registered at Udaipur. The Court found that the second FIR was an abuse of the process of law and that the High Court had erred in dismissing the quashing petition. The Court also imposed costs on the respondent No. 2 for misusing the legal process. This judgment underscores the principle that a second FIR on the same set of allegations is generally not permissible and reinforces the importance of preventing abuse of the legal process.