Blog

Case Title: Parteek Bansal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No: (Crl.) No.2520 OF 2017

Dated On: 19 April 2024

Coram: Hon’ble JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH and JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, Parateeek Bansal, and respondent No.3, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, came into contact through the internet in June 2014. The respondent No.2, the father of respondent No.3, visited the appellant in Udaipur for a proposal of marriage for his daughter. The engagement took place on February 18, 2015, and the marriage was solemnized on March 21, 2015, at Udaipur. On October 10, 2015, respondent No.2 filed a complaint at the Police Station in Hisar, Haryana, under Section 498A IPC, alleging that the appellant and his family members had harassed and tortured respondent No.3. The complaint was registered as FIR No. 19 of 2015 under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC at the Police Station in Hisar on October 17, 2015. On October 15, 2015, respondent No.2 had filed another complaint at the Police Station in Udaipur, Rajasthan, under Sections 498A, 406, 384, 420, and 120(B) IPC, alleging the same set of allegations as in the complaint at Hisar. The complaint was registered as FIR No. 156 of 2015 under Sections 498A, 406, 384, 420, and 120(B) IPC at the Women Police Station in Udaipur on November 1, 2015. The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Rajasthan High Court for quashing the FIR No. 156 of 2015 registered at Udaipur. The High Court dismissed the petition on March 6, 2017, primarily on two grounds: that the complaint at Udaipur was prior in point of time than the complaint in Hisar, and that the Rajasthan Police was not aware of the earlier proceedings/complaint before the Hisar Police The investigation was conducted by the Rajasthan Police, and the trial proceeded in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hisar. The appellant was acquitted by the Trial Court on August 2, 2017. The Appelant filed the present petition before the supreme court of india challenging the judgement of the high court and the court has also stayed further investigation in the FIR No. 156 dated 01.11.2015 P.S. Women Police Station, Udaipur, until further orders.

LEGAL PROVISION

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Section 482: Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings. It allows the High Court to quash criminal proceedings if it is satisfied that the continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law or if the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offense.

Section 173(2): Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with the submission of the Police Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. This section states that the investigating officer shall submit a report to the Magistrate in the manner specified in Section 173(1) Cr.P.C. within 60 days from the date of the first information report (FIR) being recorded.

Section 300: Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) deals with the place of inquiry or trial for offences committed partly in one jurisdiction and partly in another.

Section 177: Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. provides the foundational principle that offences should be inquired into and tried by courts within whose local jurisdiction they were committed, except where other provisions of the Cr.P.C. specify otherwise.

Section 461: Section 461 of the Cr.P.C. safeguards the validity of existing laws related to criminal procedure

Section 313: Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) deals with the examination of the accused by the court.

Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 498A: This section deals with cruelty towards a married woman by her husband or his relatives. It criminalizes any act of cruelty by the husband or his relatives which causes physical or mental harm to the wife.

Section 406: Section 406 deals with punishment for the offense of criminal breach of trust. The punishment may extend up to 3 years or fine or both.

Section 384: Section 384 deals with extortion. the punishment for extortion under Section 384 can range from imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 420: Section 420 deals with the offense of cheating. The punishment for cheating under Section 420 is imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and also fine.

Section 120B: Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offense of criminal conspiracy. It provides the punishment for criminal conspiracy which may extend to imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

Article 22 of Constitution of India

Article 22 provides safeguards to individuals against arbitrary arrest and detention by the state. It sates that No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed and every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellant contended that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had misused their official position by lodging complaints one after the other, with the intention of harassing the appellant by making him face trials at both Hisar and Udaipur. The appellant argued that the complaint at Hisar was prior in point of time than the complaint at Udaipur, and that the Rajasthan Police was aware of the earlier proceedings initiated at Hisar. Hence, the appellant prayed before the court to overturn the High court’s judgement.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

Learned counsel for the respondents, both the State of Rajasthan as also the complainant, vehemently argued that the Court at Hisar had no territorial jurisdiction as the offence had been committed at Udaipur, and therefore, the judgment of acquittal delivered by the Hisar Court was void. The complaint ought to have been examined and investigated by Rajasthan Police, but owing to the interim order passed by this Court the investigation has not proceeded as such the petition deserves to be dismissed.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Court held that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had misused their official position by lodging complaints one after the other, with the intention of harassing the appellant by making him face trials at both Hisar and Udaipur. The Supreme Court analysed the sequence of events and the dates of the complaints and concluded that the Hisar complaint was indeed prior in point of time to the Udaipur complaint. The Court found errors in the High Court’s reasoning, particularly concerning the awareness of Rajasthan Police about the Hisar proceedings. It emphasized that the Udaipur Police were aware of the Hisar complaint and thus should not have proceeded with a separate FIR on the same allegations. The Court held that the investigation and trial at Hisar were proper, and that the Trial Court had acquitted the appellant of the charges. Further the court believed that the impugned proceedings were an abuse of the process of law, as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had lodged multiple complaints and had not withdrawn the earlier complaint at Hisar with the intention of harassing the appellant by making him face trials at both Hisar and Udaipur. Keeping in view the aforementioned circumstances the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed FIR No. 156 of 2015 dated 01.11.2015, Women Police Station, Udaipur, with costs of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which shall be deposited with the Registrar of this Court within four weeks and upon deposit of the same, 50% may be transmitted in the account of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and the remaining 50% to the appellant.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – PRATYASA MISHRA

click here to view judgement