In a significant legal ruling, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a verdict in the case of Rajasthan vs Hisar. The court has quashed FIR No. 156 of 2015, shedding light on the misuse of state machinery and imposing costs amounting to Rs. 5,00,000. This judgment marks a milestone in ensuring justice and combating malicious intent. The legal battle between the respondents and the petitioners has concluded with a resounding decision.
Facts
- The appellant and Mr. A came in contact in June 2014 through the internet.
- Mr. B, the complainant and the father of Mr. A, visited the appellant in Udaipur for a marriage proposal.
- The engagement took place on 18.02.2015, and the marriage was solemnized on 21.03.2015 in Udaipur.
- Mr. B filed a complaint at the Police Station in Hisar on 17.10.2015, leading to FIR No. 19 of 2015 under Section 498A.
Also Read: Satish Jain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh – Land Ownership Dispute Judgment
Arguments
- Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out errors in the impugned order regarding the complaints and judgment of acquittal.
- The complaint at Udaipur was prior in time compared to the one at Hisar.
- The Rajasthan Police had no knowledge of the proceedings at Hisar as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.
- The respondents argued that the Hisar Court had no territorial jurisdiction as the offence occurred in Udaipur, making the judgment of acquittal void.
- It was vehemently argued that the complaint should have been examined and investigated by the Rajasthan Police.
Also Read: Understanding the Legal Implications: Mukhtar Zaidi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Analysis
- The appellant had been arrested and granted bail.
- The Rajasthan Police was aware of the earlier complaint lodged at Hisar.
- The High Court and Rajasthan Police failed to carefully read the complaints.
- The complaint at Udaipur was not prior in point of time compared to the complaint at Hisar.
- Allegations in both complaints were the same, with additional details in the Udaipur complaint.
- The High Court erred in dismissing the petition of the appellant due to these reasons.
- The conduct of the appellants indicated a malicious intent to harass by facing trials in both Hisar and Udaipur.
- Incorrect argument that no offence was committed in Hisar but only at Udaipur was not accepted.
- Deprecation of the practice of state machinery being misused for ulterior motives and causing harassment to the other side.
- Imposition of costs on the respondent No.2 to compensate the appellant due to misuse of state machinery.
Also Read: State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya: Quashing of FIR and Jurisdiction Issue
Decision
- The impugned order passed by the High Court is quashed
- The impugned proceedings registered as FIR No 156 of 2015 dated 01.11.2015, Women SLP(CRL.) Police Station, Udaipur are quashed
- Costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs Only) to be deposited with the Registrar of the Court within four weeks
- Upon deposit, 50% to be transmitted to the account of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and the remaining 50% to the appellant
Case Title: PARTEEK BANSAL Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2024 INSC 324)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002167-002167 / 2024
