Kapil Agarwal and Others vs Sanjay Sharma and Others

HELD: 1. It is not correct to say that the impugned FIR would not be maintainable, and deserves to be quashed and set aside for the reason that as on the same allegations, the private respondent-complainant has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is pending before the Magistrate. As per Section 210 Cr.P.C., when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, i.e., in a complaint case, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by the Magistrate, it appears to the Magistrate that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. It also provides that if a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. It also further provides that if the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. Thus, merely because on the same set of facts with the same allegations and averments earlier the complaint is filed, there is no bar to lodge the FIR with the police station with the same allegations and averments. [Para 5] [156-D-H; 157-A-D]

2. However, at the same time, if it is found that the subsequent FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In that case, the complaint case will proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. [Para 6][157-E-F]

3. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to achieve salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment. When the Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed. In the present case, the impugned/subsequent FIR filed by the respondent – original complainant can be said to be an abuse of process of law and the same to be bringing pressure on the accused. This is demonstrated from the facts of the case. Therefore, when the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and to harass the appellants-accused, the High Court ought to have exercised the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India/482 Cr.P.C. and ought to have quashed the impugned FIR to secure the ends of justice. [Paras 6.1, 7 and 8][157-F-G; 158-B-H; 159-A-E]

Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 : [2017] 10 SCR 12 – relied on.

4. The impugned criminal proceedings/FIR registered under Sections 420/406 IPC, are hereby quashed and set aside on the aforesaid grounds. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed anything on merits on the allegations made by respondent no.1 against the appellants as the proceedings in the form of 156(3) Cr.P.C application are pending before the Magistrate. [Para 9][159-F-G]

G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636 : [2000]

1 SCR 417 ; Jetking Infotrain Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2015)

11 SCC 730 : [2015] 3 SCR 572 – relied on.

Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar (2005) 10 SCC

336 ; Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC

751 : [2009] 13 SCR 1254 ; Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2015) 8 SCC 293 : [2015] 4 SCR 27 ; Robert John D’Souza v. Stephen V. Gomes (2015) 9 SCC

96 : [2015] 8 SCR 662 ; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 33 ; S.K. Alagh v. State of U.P. (2008) 5 SCC 662 : [2008] 2 SCR 1088 ; Sardar Singh v. State of Haryana (1977) 1 SCC 463 ; Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat (2008) 5 SCC 688 ; Sushil Sethi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (2020) 3 SCC 240 : [2020] 1 SCR 582 – referred to.