Summary
Successive matrimonial complaints on identical allegations, coupled with participation in the first investigation and failure to support or withdraw that prosecution, constituted abuse on these facts. The High Court incorrectly treated the Udaipur complaint as earlier and its police as unaware of the Hisar proceedings. The Court quashed the second FIR and imposed Rs.5 lakh costs on the complainant father, split equally between the appellant and Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
Issues
- Whether the second FIR on the same allegations amounted to abuse of process on the parties’ conduct.
- Whether the High Court’s chronology and police-knowledge findings matched the record.
- What quashing and costs relief was warranted.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The second FIR was quashed for case-specific abuse of process, without deciding the broader statutory and precedent questions argued about successive prosecution and territorial jurisdiction. (¶¶ 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
Held
- The Hisar complaint preceded the Udaipur complaint, and the later complaint expressly disclosed the earlier one. Both High Court premises—that Udaipur was first and its investigating agency lacked knowledge—were contrary to the admitted dates and record. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- The complainant and alleged victim permitted the first investigation, gave statements, sought neither withdrawal nor transfer, and then failed to testify at trial, which ended in acquittal. Pursuing a second identical complaint in that setting demonstrated harassment and misuse of official influence on the Court’s assessment. (¶¶ 4(v), 4(viii), 4(ix), 4(x), 7, 11)
- The Court resolved the matter as abuse of process without undertaking the broader statutory and case-law analysis urged by the parties. It also noted that the first complaint alleged a demand at Hisar, undermining the factual premise that all alleged conduct occurred only at Udaipur. (¶¶ 6, 7, 11)
- The appeal was allowed, the High Court order and Udaipur FIR proceedings quashed, and Rs.5 lakh costs imposed on respondent 2. Deposit with the Supreme Court Registrar was required within four weeks, for equal distribution to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and the appellant. (¶¶ 11, 12)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order and second Udaipur FIR proceedings quashed. Respondent 2 to deposit Rs.5 lakh within four weeks, half each for the appellant and Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.