Second FIR On Same Incident Is Abuse Of Process Of Law, May Be Quashed Without Awaiting Final Report U/S 173 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that if a second FIR is registered regarding an incident on which a prior FIR already exists, it amounts to abuse of process of law and the High Court is well within its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the same, without awaiting a final report under Section 173 CrPC. Justice Vikas Bahl observed,"exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of an FIR has not been absolutely excluded where a report under Section 173 CrPC is not filed. The said power is to be exercised sparingly and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to in which situations and when the said power can be or should be exercised."The Court illustrated thus some of the situations in which, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the said power may be exercised in spite of the report under Section 173 CrPC having not been filed:If a second FIR has been filed for an incident regarding which one FIR already existsIf on a bare reading of the FIR, the commission of an offence is not made outIF the FIR has been registered for a non-cognizable offenceIf the FIR has been registered for offences not exceeding three years, after the period of limitationIf an FIR has been registered in violation of a judicial orderIf an FIR has been registered in violation of a statute or a legal principle settled by a judicial pronouncementIt however clarified, that the above said instances are only enumerative and not exhaustive.It added,"whether a case for quashing is made out or not, even in a case where the abovesaid issues arise would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the said case and it cannot be stated in absolute terms that in all cases where the above said issues arise that the FIR has to be quashed."BackgroundThe petitioner had sought to quash an FIR containing charges under S.384 (Punishment for extortion), S.511(Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or another imprisonment) and S.506 (Punishment for Criminal Intimidation), filed by the respondent no.2/complainant. This FIR was filed by respondent no.2 in August 2021 stating that the petitioner had enmity with the complainant's father since 2008 and he had registered a false rape case against the complainant in the year 2019 and had blackmailed him for INR 14 Lakh to take revenge and in this rape case FIR, the SHO and Superintendent of Police had declared respondent no.2 innocent. Then in 2020, one Gurjit Singh went to respondent no. 2 regarding one girl 'R' who was apparently blackmailing Gurjit Singh for money and thus, respondent no.2, being an advocate, advised Gurjit Singh to register a case against 'R' under S.384 IPC. The petitioner then bailed 'R' and provoked her to file a false rape case against respondent no.2 but 'R' refused to do so and only filed a case against Gurjit Singh which was subsequently cancelled because Gurjit Singh was found innocent. Then the petitioner in connivance with others again threatened respondent no.2 with a false rape case if INR 14 Lakh was not paid to the petitioner and in this background, respondent no. 2 had to file an FIR under S.384, 511 and 506, which the petitioner sought to quash. Arguments by Counsel for Petitioner Advocate Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, counsel for the petitioner submitted that this registration of the FIR in question (filed by respondent no. 2) was a complete abuse of the process of the court. He submitted that regarding the 2019 FIR, respondent no.2 was made an accused in addition to two other people. Following this, respondent no. 2 had filed an application in August 2020 in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st class against 'R', the present petitioner and three other people, praying to register a case under S.211 (False charge of offence made with intent to injure), 193 (Punishment for false evidence), 389 (Putting person in fear of accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion) and 120B IPC. The Judicial Magistrate 1st class was of the opinion that the facts disclosed in the application did not warrant registration of an FIR and thus, treated this application under S.156(3) as a criminal complaint and adjourned the same for pre-summoning evidence. 'S' then appeared in the witness box and made specific allegations against respondent no. 2 and respondent no.2 was summoned by the court under S.319 (Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence) of CrPC, via an order in December 2021. Since the respondent no.2 had not disclosed any of this information in the FIR in question, actively concealed facts regarding the criminal complaint already filed and his court summoning and got the present FIR registered without challenging the order passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st class, this was an abuse of process of Court, argued the learned counsel for the petitioner. Arguments by Counsel for the respondent Per Contra, ...

Second FIR On Same Incident Is Abuse Of Process Of Law, May Be Quashed Without Awaiting Final Report U/S 173 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana HC

Rashmi Bagri

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rashmi Bagri

Second FIR On Same Incident Is Abuse Of Process Of Law, May Be Quashed Without Awaiting Final Report U/S 173 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana HC

Rashmi Bagri

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rashmi Bagri

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers