PARTEEK BANSAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. AS ON DATED 19 APRIL 2024, SC
Hon’ble Bench of Shri Vikram Nath of Supreme Court finds that complaint lodged at Udaipur, the allegations were the same as in the complaint at Hisar and additionally it was stated in the complaint at Udaipur that the complainant had earlier lodged a complaint at Hisar. Thus, the investigating agency at Udaipur was well aware of the complaint on similar allegations being lodged at Hisar. The High Court again fell in error in observing that the Rajasthan Police was not aware about the earlier proceedings initiated at Hisar. The High Court and the Rajasthan Police were expected to at least read the complaint carefully. Courts finds that High court failed to dismissed the case.
Apex court finds that, wife and her father had been misusing their official position by lodging complaints one after the other. Further, their conduct of neither appearing before the Trial Court at Hisar nor withdrawing their complaint at Hisar, would show that their only intention was to harass the appellant by first making him face a trial at Hisar and then again at Udaipur. It would also be relevant to note that the appellant had been arrested and thereafter granted bail. And now before this Court, the , wife and her father have been vehemently opposing the quashing of the FIR at Udaipur. Apex court also note that in the complaint made at Hisar, there are allegations to the effect that when Wife visited the appellant at Hisar, he had made a demand of Rs. 50,00,000/- and also an Innova Car. Thus, the argument that no offence was committed in Hisar but only at Udaipur was also not correct. Thus deprecate this practice of state machinery being misused for ulterior motives and for causing harassment to the other side, Court imposed cost of Rs 5,00,000 on Father In-law in order to compensate the appellant/Husband
