PARTEEK BANSALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

                  [2024] 5 S.C.R. 74 : 2024 INSC 324

                             Parteek Bansal
                                    v.
                        State of Rajasthan & Ors.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 2167 of 2024)
                                  19 April 2024
           [Vikram Nath* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court erred in not quashing FIR under Section
       482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a complaint alleging
       offences under Sections 498A, 406, 384, 420, and 120(B), Indian
       Penal Code, 1860, on the ground that the second FIR was on the
       same set of allegations.

                                   Headnotes
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Abuse of process
       of law – Subsequent FIR in Udaipur, Rajasthan on the same set
       of allegations by the complainant after two weeks of lodging
       the first FIR under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC in
       Hisar, Haryana was an abuse of process of law.
       Held: The inaction of the complainant in withdrawing the first
       complaint or allowing the investigating agency in Hisar to continue
       its investigation without taking steps to transfer the first complaint
       to Udaipur on the ground of commission of offence in Udaipur i.e.,
       where the second FIR was filed constitutes an abuse of process
       of law. [Paras 7, 11]
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Non-application of
       mind by High Court – Findings of the High Court contradictory
       to the record and admitted facts.
       Held: The record clearly shows that the subsequent complaint
       lodged at Udaipur contained the same allegations as in the first
       FIR at Hisar and additionally it was stated therein about the
       earlier complaint lodged at Hisar – Thus, the High Court erred in
       dismissing the quashing petition of the Appellant on the ground
       that the complaint in Udaipur was prior in point of time than the
       complaint in Hisar and the Rajasthan Police was unaware of the
       earlier proceedings. [Paras 7-12]


* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                            75

               Parteek Bansal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.


     Abuse of Process of Law – Misuse of State machinery for
     ulterior motives – The complainants’ conduct of neither
     appearing before the trial court at Hisar nor withdrawing their
     complaint shows their intention to harass the appellant.
     Held: The Court noticed that the Respondent No. 3 wife as a
     gazetted police officer at the relevant time and being well aware
     of the laws, in particular, CrPC, misused her position for filing
     one complaint after the other through her father (complainant) –
     Further, the conduct of the Complainant and Respondent wife of
     neither appearing before the Trial Court at Hisar nor withdrawing
     the complaint shows their intention to harass the Appellant by first
     making him face a trial in Hisar, which ultimately acquitted the
     Appellant, and then again at Udaipur – Accordingly, impugned FIR
     quashed with costs. [Paras 4, 11]

                              Case Law Cited
           Prem Chand Singh v. State of UP (2020) 3 SCC 54;
           T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors. [2001] 3 SCR 942;
           Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai
           & Anr. [2004] Supp. 3 SCR 604 – relied on.

                                List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.

                             List of Keywords
     Another complaint; Same allegations; Abuse of process; Intention
     to harass; Quashing; Criminal proceedings; Conduct; Failure to
     withdraw; Section 482 Cr.P.C.

                            Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.2167
     of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2017 of the High Court
     of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in SBCRM No. 3259 of 2015
                         Appearances for Parties
     Rishi Malhotra, Jaydip Pati, Utkarsh Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Dr. Manish Singhvi, Uday Gupta, Sr. Advs., Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal,
     Apurv Singhvi, Anuj Gupta, Shailesh Joshi, D. K. Devesh, Ms. Shivani
76                                                                 [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                                Digital Supreme Court Reports


        Lal, Gaurav Dave, M. K. Tripathi, Ms. Sanam Singh, Harish Dasan,
        Rajiv Ranjan, Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Ms. Yogamaya M. G., Hiren
        Dasan, Advs. for the Respondents.
                            Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                         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, 19731 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, 18602.
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.


1     In short, “Cr.P.C.”
2     In short, “IPC”
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                            77

               Parteek Bansal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.


     (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
78                                                           [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                             Digital Supreme Court Reports


              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 PW-4, who
              had prepared the Challan upon completion of the investigation.
       (x). The Trial Court further records that prosecution tried its best
            to secure the presence of the complainant and the victim but
            they did not turn up to depose before the Court. Left with no
            alternative, the Trial Court proceeded to close the evidence of
            the prosecution and after recording the statement of the appellant
            under Section 313 Cr.P.C., proceeded to hear the counsel for
            the parties and record the finding of acquittal.
5.     Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to both the
       complaints, the judgement of acquittal as also the errors apparent on
       the face of record in the impugned order regarding both the grounds,
       that the complaint at Udaipur was prior in point of time than that at
       Hisar, and secondly that the Rajasthan Police had no knowledge of
       the proceedings at Hisar.
6.     Learned counsel for the respondents, both the State of Rajasthan
       as also the complainant, have vehemently 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 complaint ought to have been examined
       and investigated by Rajasthan Police, but owing to the interim
       order passed by this Court the investigation has not proceeded as
       such the petition deserves to be dismissed. We have also been
       taken through the relevant statutory provisions under the Cr.P.C. in
       particular Sections 300, 177, 461 and Article 22 of the Constitution
       of India by the counsel for the parties and further reliance has also
       been placed on the following judgements:
       (i).   Prem Chand Singh vs. State of UP3
       (ii). T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors.4
       (iii). Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai
              & Anr.5


3     (2020) 3 SCC 54
4     [2001] 3 SCR 942 : (2001) 6 SCC 181
5     [2004] Supp. 3 SCR 604 : (2004) 8 SCC 100
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                         79

               Parteek Bansal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.


     The first two have been relied upon by the counsel for the appellant
     and the third by the counsel for the respondents.
7.   Without going into these statutory provisions and the case laws
     relied upon by the parties, we are convinced that the impugned
     proceedings are nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 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. They allowed the investigating
     agency to continue to investigate in which their statements were also
     recorded. The respondent No.3 was a gazetted Police Officer at
     the relevant time and was also well aware of the laws, in particular
     the Cr.P.C. and the provisions thereto. Neither the complainant nor
     the victim entered the witness box before the Hisar Court allowing
     total wastage of the valuable time of the Court and the investigating
     agency. 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.
8.   The following admitted dates would be relevant to upset the finding
     of the High Court that the complaint at Udaipur was prior in point
     of time:
     (i).   Complaint at Hisar is dated 10.10.2015.
     (ii). Complaint at Udaipur is dated 15.10.2015.
     (iii). FIR registered at Hisar is dated 17.10.2015
     (iv). FIR registered at Udaipur is dated 01.11.2015.
     On what basis the High Court recorded the finding that the complaint
     at Udaipur was prior in point of time is not discernible from the above
     dates and is contrary to the records and the admitted facts.
9.   It is also not in dispute that in the complaint lodged at Udaipur, the
     allegations were the same as in the complaint at Hisar and additionally
     it was stated in the complaint at Udaipur that the complainant had
     earlier lodged a complaint at Hisar. Thus, the investigating agency at
     Udaipur was well aware of the complaint on similar allegations being
     lodged at Hisar. The High Court again fell in error in observing that
80                                                        [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


      the Rajasthan Police was not aware about the earlier proceedings
      initiated at Hisar. The High Court and the Rajasthan Police were
      expected to at least read the complaint carefully.
10. Thus, on both the counts, we find that the High Court fell in error in
    dismissing the petition of the appellant.
11. 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. Further, their
    conduct of neither appearing before the Trial Court at Hisar nor
    withdrawing their complaint at Hisar, would show that their only
    intention was to harass the appellant by first making him face a trial
    at Hisar and then again at Udaipur. It would also be relevant to note
    that the appellant had been arrested and thereafter granted bail.
    And now before this Court, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been
    vehemently opposing the quashing of the FIR at Udaipur. We may
    also note that in the complaint made at Hisar, there are allegations
    to the effect that when respondent No.2 visited the appellant at Hisar,
    he had made a demand of Rs. 50,00,000/- and also an Innova Car.
    Thus, the argument that no offence was committed in Hisar but only
    at Udaipur was also not correct. We thus deprecate this practice of
    state machinery being misused for ulterior motives and for causing
    harassment to the other side, we are thus inclined to impose cost
    on the respondent No.2 in order to compensate the appellant.
12. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned proceeding
    passed by the High Court is quashed, and the impugned proceedings
    registered as FIR No. 156 of 2015 dated 01.11.2015, Women Police
    Station, Udaipur are quashed with costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs.
    Five Lacs Only) which shall be deposited with the Registrar of this
    Court within four weeks and upon deposit of the same, 50% may
    be transmitted in the account of Supreme Court Legal Services
    Committee and the remaining 50% to the appellant.


      Headnotes prepared by:                             Result of the case:
      Ankitesh Ojha, Hony. Associate Editor                Appeal allowed.
      (Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)