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

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 exists
• If on a bare reading of the FIR, the commission of an offence is not made out
• IF the FIR has been registered for a non-cognizable offence
• If the FIR has been registered for offences not exceeding three years, after the period of limitation
• If an FIR has been registered in violation of a judicial order
• If an FIR has been registered in violation of a statute or a legal principle settled by a judicial pronouncement

It 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."

Background

The 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st class, this was an abuse of process of Court, argued the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Arguments by Counsel for the respondent

Per Contra, leaned counsel for complainant stated that the petition under S.482 CrPC should be dismissed for lack of report under S.173, CrPC. He further submitted a telephonic conversation between one Kulwant Singh who is the uncle of 'S', the petitioner and the complainant regarding a demand of INR 14 lakhs.

Findings

The Court had to decide on two important questions of law: whether a petition under S.482 can be dismissed for lack of report of under S.173 under CrPC? And Secondly, whether filing of another FIR while an FIR on the same incident exists, amounts to abuse of process of law and should be quashed?

The court referred to the apex court's judgment in Ajay Mitra v. State of MP & Ors. where it was held that "if an FIR does not disclose the essential requirements of the penal provision or does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the same can be quashed at the initial stage." And to the Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. where the court held that "the High Court can exercise its extraordinary power under A.226 of the Constitution or the inherent power under S.482 CrPC, 1973 to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure ends of justice."

Thus, after averring all facts, judgments and provisions, the Court concluded that since respondent no. 2 did not show any reference regarding the complaint under S.156(3) which had been made before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st class, in the FIR in question and he had registered the second FIR in violation of the order given by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class who had clearly stated that allegations in the complaint did not warrant registration of an FIR and the respondent no. 2 had not brought to the court's notice that charges had been framed against him as per S.319, CrPC, these acts of respondent no. 2 amounted to forum shopping and the registration of the FIR in question was thus, held illegal.

Court also stated that provisions of S.506 would not be attracted, the offence under S.384 was not made out and the question of seeking money was too far-fetched. The Court further observed that "respondent no.2 has been filing one application after the other to influence the prosecutrix 'R' in the case and to pressurize her not to give statement against respondent no.2" showing abuse of process of the court and indulgence in forum shopping.

Thus, the Court quashed the present FIR citing that it was registered with mala-fide intent, solely to take vengeance on the petitioner.