Summary
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust because its chronology and circumstances showed an abuse of process intended to pressure company officers. An earlier application on similar allegations remained pending before the Magistrate, while the company had already prosecuted the complainant for cheque dishonour. The Court clarified that a pending complaint does not itself bar a police FIR on the same facts. It left the earlier application and all its merits for the Magistrate’s independent decision.
Issues
- Whether a pending complaint on the same allegations bars registration of an FIR.
- Whether the subsequent FIR in these circumstances constituted an abuse of process warranting quashing.
Provisions considered
- Section 210, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The provision contemplates a complaint case and police investigation concerning the same offence, with a stay, joint trial or resumption according to the statutory conditions. A prior complaint is therefore not itself a bar to an FIR. (¶ 5)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court should exercise its preserved power where criminal proceedings are being used to harass or pressure the accused. (¶ 6-9)
Held
- An earlier complaint on the same facts and allegations does not automatically prohibit registration of an FIR. Section 210 expressly provides how a Magistrate must handle a complaint case when a police investigation concerns the same offence. (¶ 5)
- A later FIR may nevertheless be quashed if it abuses the process or is intended to harass. The earlier complaint can then proceed according to law. (¶ 6-6.2)
- Here the company’s cheque-dishonour complaint preceded the complainant’s application to the Magistrate. The later FIR repeated those allegations after a substantial interval, omitted both pending proceedings and was lodged while the earlier application was not being pursued. Taken together, the circumstances showed harassment and pressure. (¶ 7)
- Quashing the impugned FIR did not decide whether the allegations in the pending application established any offence. The Magistrate was directed to proceed independently on that application in accordance with law. (¶ 8-9)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned FIR and criminal proceedings quashed. Earlier application under Section 156(3) left for independent decision on its merits.