Menu

Title- PARTEEK BANSAL vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Case Comment, Publications

Citation-Special Leave to Petition (Crl.) No.2520 OF 2017

Court– Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Date of Judgement:19 April,2024

Parties:

Appellant-Parteek Bansal

Respondent- State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Important provisions – Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482: Grants power to the High Court to quash any FIR’s or criminal proceedings.

 Section 173(2): Pertains to the police report submitted after the completion of the investigation. 

Section 300;177: Pertains to territorial and ordinary jurisdiction respectively.

Introduction:

In this case, the Supreme court reversed the judgement of the High court decision regarding multiple complaints filed by the respondent is not the correct way to use the legal process. The Supreme court highlighted the importance of reading of complaints carefully and not to make trivial misreading’s. Abuse of power should not be done specifically for harassing or to trouble someone.

Facts:

  1. The Appellant and the respondent No.3 meet each other through internet.
  2. The appellant was a chartered accountant in Hisar and respondent No. 3 was Deputy Superintendent Police (DSP) in Udaipur, Rajasthan.
  3. The complainant (respondent No. 2) who was the father of respondent No. 3 visited Udaipur to meet the appellant for the proposal of marriage for his daughter (respondent No. 3).
  4. The engagement of the Appellant and the respondent No. 3 took place on 18.02.2015 and then their marriage was solemnized on 21.03.15 at Udaipur.
  5. On 10.10.2015, the father of the daughter (respondent No.3) lodged a complaint at the police station of Hisar, Haryana under section 498A IPC.
  6. Later, the same complaint was lodged after 7 days i.e., on 17.10.2015 under section 498A IPC which was read together. 
  7.  But when both the FIRs where under the process at that time, the respondento. 3 filed a complaint after 5 days of the first complaint i.e. on 15.10.2015 for same allegation/grounds/charges and this FIR was registered on 01.11.2015 under section 498A/506 IPC.
  8. According to the first complaint, along with the appellant, charges were also framed on his family members.
  9. After some investigation, the police submitted their report in December in which they framed charges under 173(2) Cr.P.C and the appellant was solely charged under section 498A.
  10.  Furthermore, the police report was sent to Magistrate court, who ordered to start of the trial under criminal case, registered under the court of judicial Magistate,1st class, Hisar 
  11.  At the same time, the appellant filed a petition against the termination of the second FIR, which was registered in Udaipur under section 482 Cr.P.C before the Rajasthan High Court.
  12.  The High court of Rajasthan dismissed the petition on 06.03.2017 citing the precedence of the Udaipur complaint and the Rajasthan police was unaware about the prior complaint made at Hisar.
  13.  The appellant moved to the Supreme court of India after the High court dismissed the petition. The appellant filed a special leave petition (SLP) which stayed the investigation of the FIR dated on 01.11.2015 at the women police station, Udaipur.
  14.  The trial court of Hisar concluded the proceedings and the appellant was not held guilty on 02.08.2017.

Issues Raised

  1. Whether filing of second FIR at Udaipur on the same allegations by same complainant valid or not?
  2. Whether the jurisdiction conflict arising is valid?

Contentions:

Arguments from the side of appellant:

  1. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the second FIR filed by the complainant should be terminated.
  2. The counsel added that when the appellant filed a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C before the Rajasthan High Court about quashing the second FIR, it was rejected on two grounds a) due to prior complaint in Hisar and the complaint was made in Udaipur. b) Rajasthan police was not aware of the proceedings that took place at Hisar.
  3. Though the Apex court had ordered a stay on the FIR investigation, but the Trial court had acquitted the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C
  4. The counsel further argues that the High Court had misinterpreted the chronology of the events and Rajasthan police was aware about the case at Hisar.

Arguments from the side of respondents:

  1. The respondent counsel argued that the Hisar court has no territorial jurisdiction because the alleged crime happened in Udaipur, Rajasthan.
  2. The counsel claimed that the Hisar court’s decision of acquittal of the accused is invalid as it lacked the legal authority to acquit the accused due to jurisdictional issues. 
  3. Highlighting compliances to the procedural rules, the counsel for the respondent argued that according to Cr.P.C and constitutional article, the complaint should have been investigated by Rajasthan police and not by the Hisar Police.
  4. Furthermore, the counsel for the respondent mentioned that as the Supreme court had given a stay order for the investigation, which stopped the Rajasthan police to further investigate the matter. 

Rationale: 

The Supreme court in the case of Parteek Bansal vs State of Rajasthan observed that firstly the Rajasthan High court had made errors by incorrectly stating the complaint from Udaipur was filed before and then to Hisar. Also, the High Court of Rajasthan wrongly assumed that the police were unaware of the proceedings that were going in Hisar, because of this misinterpretation the High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant under section 482 Cr.P.C. 

Secondly, the Supreme court recognized that the respondent No. 2 and 3 who are police officers misused their position to file multiple complaints at different places on the appellant to harass the appellant. The Court also found that accusations against the appellant, like demands for money and a car, were not true.

Thirdly, supreme court said that the decision of the trial court to acquit the appellant was correct as there was lack of evidence provided by the respondent and hence, the appellant was acquitted under section 313 Cr.P.C.

Furthermore, the Supreme court addressed that the importance of handling the cases fairly for cases like this. As it will help to prevent the misuse of legal the procedures and also stop the harassment for false accusations. Also, the court said to respondent no.3 to know the laws of Cr.P.C well and not to waste the court’s time.  Hence, the apex court asked the respondent No. 2 to compensate the appellant. They also cancelled the decision of High Court and told respondent No. 2 to pay Rs.5,00,000 within 4 weeks. The 50% amount to be transferred to the account of Supreme Court Legal Services Committees and the remaining 50% to be transferred to appellant.  

Defects of law

  1. Error of Time – The Rajasthan High Court made an incorrect judgement about the order of complaints from Udaipur to Hisar based on the timing and not facts of the complaints.
  2. Abuse of legal process- The respondent No.3 a police officer has misused her official position to file multiple case on the appellant at different places which is not correct 
  3.  Ignorance of police awareness- The High court had not properly scrutinized whether the Rajasthan police were aware of the Hisar proceedings before allowing the Udaipur police to investigate the matter which compromised the fairness of the appellant’s case.
  4.  Lack of substantial proof -Though the trial court acquitted the appellant under section 133 Cr.P.C the High court did not review the lack of evidence against the appellant before dismissing the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C which shows that there was lack of procedural fairness.
  5. Confusion in Jurisdictional Boundaries: There was confusion over which police jurisdiction (Rajasthan or Haryana) should have investigated the complaints against the appellant. This lack of clarity delayed proceedings and affected the appellant’s right to a prompt and impartial investigation.
  6. Confusion Over Multiple FIRs- The legal system’s lack of clear guidelines on handling multiple FIRs for the same incident led to confusion among courts, which resulted in inconsistent decisions and added complication to the appellant’s legal situation.
  7. Lack of Coordination Between Jurisdictions: There was a failure in coordinating between the jurisdictions of Hisar and Udaipur, leading to overlapping investigations and legal proceedings. This lack of coordination led the confusion and prolonged the resolution of the case

Inference

In this case, the Apex court found that the High court had made an error in quashing the appellant’s petition to quash the second FIR. The supreme court also highlighted that filing multiple complaints amounted to a misuse of legal process. As a result, the Court ordered respondent No.2 and 3 to compensate the appellant financially. By reversing the judgement of the High court, this case gives an emphasize the importance of preventing abuse of legal procedures and also ensures fair justice.

NAME- VEDANTI BHUSHAN HATE

COLLEGE NAME- M.K.E.S COLLEGE OF LAW