Are Multiple FIRs on Same Allegations Abuse of Process? SC Explains!

Key Judicial Interpretation

The Supreme Court emphasized that registering multiple FIRs based on the same set of allegations is an abuse of legal process and should be quashed to prevent harassment of the accused (paras 7-10).

Court’s View

The Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the petition to quash the second FIR. It clarified that the complaint at Udaipur was not prior in time to the complaint at Hisar and both FIRs had similar allegations, indicating abuse of the legal process (paras 8-10).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the FIR No. 156 of 2015 registered at Women Police Station, Udaipur, and imposed costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the respondent to compensate the appellant for the harassment and misuse of legal process (para 12).

Relevant Acts, Sections, Provisions, and Rules Cited

Sections 300, 177, 461 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 498A, 406, 384, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Case of the Appellant

The appellant, Parteek Bansal, argued that the second FIR registered at Udaipur was based on the same set of allegations as the first FIR registered at Hisar, and thus, constituted an abuse of legal process. He sought quashing of the second FIR.

Appellant Relied On

The appellant relied on the principle that multiple FIRs on the same facts should not be allowed and cited discrepancies in the High Court’s observations regarding the timelines and knowledge of the Udaipur Police.

Case of the Respondent

The respondents, State of Rajasthan and others, contended that the Udaipur Police were unaware of the Hisar FIR and had the jurisdiction to investigate the complaint lodged at Udaipur. They argued that the Hisar court lacked territorial jurisdiction.

Respondent Relied On

The respondents relied on procedural arguments regarding jurisdiction and the validity of the Udaipur FIR as an independent complaint.

Question & Answer

Question: What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the multiple FIRs in this case? Answer: The Supreme Court ruled that registering multiple FIRs based on the same set of allegations is an abuse of legal process and quashed the second FIR registered at Udaipur (paras 7-10).

Question: Why did the Supreme Court impose costs on the respondent? Answer: The Supreme Court imposed costs on the respondent for misusing the legal process by lodging multiple FIRs and causing harassment to the appellant (para 12).

Question: What was the Supreme Court’s view on the High Court’s observation about the timing of the complaints? Answer: The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its observation, noting that the complaint at Hisar was prior in time to the complaint at Udaipur, contrary to what the High Court had stated (para 8).

Question: How did the Supreme Court address the issue of territorial jurisdiction? Answer: The Supreme Court noted that the Hisar complaint contained allegations related to demands made at Hisar, thus establishing territorial jurisdiction. It criticized the respondents for not addressing jurisdictional issues earlier (para 11).

Question: What was the final outcome of the appeal filed by Parteek Bansal? Answer: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the second FIR registered at Udaipur, and imposed costs on the respondent for harassment and misuse of the legal process (para 12).

Details of Case

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Date of Order: April 19, 2024
Case Name: Parteek Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. _____ of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2520 of 2017)