KAPIL AGARWAL AND OTHERS versus SANJAY SHARMA AND OTHERS

KAPIL AGARWAL AND OTHERS versus SANJAY SHARMA AND OTHERS

Mere pendency of a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. does not bar lodging of an FIR on the same allegations, per Section 210 Cr.P.C.; however, if a subsequent FIR is found to be an abuse of process of law intended to harass the accused, the High Court (or Supreme Court) may quash it under Article 226 or Section 482 Cr.P.C. Applying these principles, the Court found the impugned FIR to be an abuse of process and quashed it, while leaving the pending Section 156(3) proceedings to be decided by the Magistrate.

Parties
Appellants: Kapil Agarwal and Others; Respondents: Sanjay Sharma and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal to the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Quashing of FIR, Abuse of Process, Section 482 Cr.p.c., Article 226, Section 156(3) Cr.p.c., Section 210 Cr.p.c., Section 138 NI Act, Offences Under Sections 420 and 406 IPC
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Constitutional Law Negotiable Instruments Act Quashing of FIR Abuse of Process Section 482 Cr.p.c. Article 226 +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kapil Agarwal and Others

Appellants

Sanjay Sharma and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal to the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an FIR is maintainable when a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in respect of the same allegations is pending before a Magistrate
  2. 2 Whether a subsequent FIR can be quashed as an abuse of process of law or as being lodged to harass the accused
  3. 3 Whether the impugned FIR disclosed offences under Sections 420/406 IPC and ought to be quashed at the threshold

Ratio Decidendi

Mere pendency of a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. does not bar lodging of an FIR on the same allegations, per Section 210 Cr.P.C.; however, if a subsequent FIR is found to be an abuse of process of law intended to harass the accused, the High Court (or Supreme Court) may quash it under Article 226 or Section 482 Cr.P.C. Applying these principles, the Court found the impugned FIR to be an abuse of process and quashed it, while leaving the pending Section 156(3) proceedings to be decided by the Magistrate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned criminal proceedings/FIR registered as Case Crime No. 790 of 2017 under Sections 420/406 IPC at Police Station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad quashed and set aside.
  • No expression on merits; the Magistrate shall proceed with the pending Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application in accordance with law.