Supreme Court Quashes Second FIR in 498A Case: Abuse of Legal Process Highlighted

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a crucial verdict in Parteek Bansal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., where it quashed a second FIR filed in a dowry harassment case under Section 498A IPC. The ruling reaffirms the principle that multiple FIRs on the same set of allegations violate the fundamental rights of the accused and constitute an abuse of the legal process.

Background of the Case

The case involved allegations of dowry harassment against the appellant, Parteek Bansal, by his wife, Respondent No.3, a Deputy Superintendent of Police in Rajasthan. The key facts were:

• The marriage was solemnized on March 21, 2015, in Udaipur.
• On October 10, 2015, the wife’s father filed a complaint in Hisar, Haryana, under Section 498A IPC, alleging dowry harassment.
• The complaint was registered as FIR No. 19 of 2015 at Police Station Hisar on October 17, 2015.
• Five days later, on October 15, 2015, another complaint was filed in Udaipur with the same allegations.
• On November 1, 2015, this second complaint was registered as FIR No. 156 of 2015 at Women Police Station, Udaipur.
• In December 2015, the Hisar police completed the investigation and filed a charge sheet against the appellant.
• Despite this, the second FIR in Udaipur remained under investigation, prompting the appellant to file a petition before the Rajasthan High Court to quash it.

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the Udaipur complaint was filed first and the Rajasthan police were unaware of the Hisar FIR. This led the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-acquits-three-in-murder-case-high-courts-conviction-overturned/

Arguments by the Appellant (Parteek Bansal)

• The appellant contended that the second FIR in Udaipur was an abuse of the legal process, as the allegations were identical to those in the Hisar FIR.
• He argued that under Section 300 CrPC, a person cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offense.
• He relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, which held that successive FIRs on the same facts violate Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The appellant highlighted that he was acquitted in the Hisar case, further demonstrating the baselessness of the allegations.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Rajasthan & Wife)

• The respondents argued that the Rajasthan police had jurisdiction as the alleged offenses occurred in Udaipur.
• They contended that the Hisar court lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
• They maintained that the High Court rightly refused to quash the second FIR, as the police in Rajasthan were unaware of the Hisar proceedings.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

• The Court found that the second FIR was an abuse of process, as the same allegations had already been investigated in Hisar.
• It noted that the complainant’s father deliberately filed complaints in two states to harass the appellant.
• The Court observed: “It is evident that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 misused their official position by lodging complaints one after the other.”
• It criticized the Rajasthan High Court for incorrectly stating that the Udaipur complaint was filed first.
• The Court ruled: “The continuation of proceedings in the second FIR is an abuse of process, warranting its quashing.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and issued the following directives:

• The Rajasthan High Court’s decision was quashed.
• The second FIR (No. 156 of 2015) at Women Police Station, Udaipur, was quashed.
• The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 on the complainant, to be paid to the appellant.

Implications of the Judgment

• This ruling reinforces the principle that multiple FIRs on the same allegations violate constitutional protections.
• It ensures that legal proceedings are not misused to harass accused individuals.
• The decision strengthens the legal framework protecting individuals from double jeopardy.
• It serves as a precedent for future cases involving duplicate FIRs.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Parteek Bansal v. State of Rajasthan marks a significant victory for fairness in criminal proceedings. By quashing the second FIR and imposing costs on the complainant, the Court has sent a strong message against the misuse of legal processes. This ruling upholds fundamental rights and ensures that criminal law is not weaponized for personal vendettas.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/murder-conviction-overturned-supreme-court-acquits-accused-in-1996-gujarat-killing/

Petitioner Name: Parteek Bansal.
Respondent Name: State of Rajasthan & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Place Of Incident: Udaipur, Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 19-04-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: parteek-bansal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-&-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-19-04-2024.pdf