The Supreme Court of India quashed an FIR filed in Udaipur against the appellant, holding that it was based on the same allegations as an earlier FIR lodged in Hisar, Haryana. The Court found that the second FIR constituted an abuse of legal process, particularly given the complainant’s failure to pursue their case in Hisar and their subsequent actions to initiate a parallel proceeding in Rajasthan. Costs of ₹5 lakhs were imposed on the complainant, with half directed to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and the other half to the appellant.

1. Parties Involved

   • Appellant: Chartered Accountant based in Hisar
   • Respondent No. 2: Complainant and father of the bride
   • Respondent No. 3: Bride, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udaipur

2. Marriage and Allegations

   • The appellant and respondent No. 3 were married on 21.03.2015.
   • Complaint under Section 498A IPC filed in Hisar on 10.10.2015; FIR No. 19/2015 was registered on 17.10.2015.
   • Second complaint filed in Udaipur on 15.10.2015, resulting in FIR No. 156 on 01.11.2015 for similar allegations.

3. Proceedings in Hisar

   • The appellant faced trial under Section 498A IPC.
   • The trial concluded with the acquittal of the appellant on 02.08.2017 due to the complainant’s non-appearance in court.

4. Quashing Petition

   • The appellant sought quashing of the Udaipur FIR before the Rajasthan High Court, which was dismissed.
   • The High Court's reasoning: (i) Udaipur FIR was prior in time; (ii) Rajasthan Police was unaware of Hisar FIR.

5. Supreme Court Judgment

   • The Supreme Court found that the Udaipur FIR was later in time and based on the same allegations as the Hisar FIR.
   • It held that the complainant misused the legal process by not withdrawing the Hisar FIR and later lodging another FIR in Udaipur.
   • The Court quashed the Udaipur FIR and imposed costs of ₹5 lakhs on the complainant.

Acts and Sections Discussed

• Indian Penal Code, 1860

  • Section 498A (Cruelty by husband or relatives)
  • Section 406 (Criminal breach of trust)
  • Section 384 (Extortion)
  • Section 420 (Cheating)
  • Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy)

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

  • Section 173(2) (Submission of final report)
  • Section 300 (Bar on second trial for same offence)
  • Section 177 (Jurisdiction of offence)
  • Section 461 (Irregular proceedings)

Ratio Decidendi

• Filing of Multiple FIRs: The Court emphasized that filing multiple FIRs on the same set of facts constitutes an abuse of process.
• Territorial Jurisdiction: The Court rejected the argument that Hisar had no jurisdiction, given that parts of the alleged offence occurred there.
• Misuse of State Machinery: The complainants, by filing multiple complaints and not appearing for trial, were found to misuse their official position and cause unnecessary harassment to the appellant.

Subject and Tags

#Quashing of Second FIR  #Misuse of Process #Abuse of Legal System #Acquittal in Matrimonial Disputes  #498A #CriminalLaw #AbuseOfProcess #TerritorialJurisdiction #MatrimonialDispute