PARTEEK BANSAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

Citation: [2024] 5 S.C.R. 74 · Decided: 19-04-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[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]
[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 alle
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.