Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

Wife Police Officer and Her Father Misused Legal Process with Multiple FIRs on Husband - Supreme Court Imposed 5 Lakh Fine on Wife and Her Father

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Merely because she was a Police Officer, she first managed to get an FIR lodged at Hisar through her father, and thereafter she moved to her hometown at Udaipur and got another complaint lodged by her father within a week. Supreme Court Criticizes Misuse of Legal Process by Police Officer and Her Father

In a striking judgment, the Supreme Court quashed an FIR against Parteek Bansal, highlighting the misuse of the judicial and legal process by a Deputy Superintendent of Police and her father, which involved the lodging of multiple FIRs in different jurisdictions based on the same set of allegations.

The judgment focused on the procedural irregularities and the strategic filing of consecutive FIRs in Hisar and Udaipur, aimed at harassing the appellant, which the court found to be an abuse of the legal process.

 

Parteek Bansal's interaction with the officer through an online platform led to their engagement and subsequent marriage, followed by marital discord. The officer's father, leveraging his daughter’s position, lodged FIRs first in Hisar and then in Udaipur, escalating the legal conflict across state lines, which prompted the legal challenge.

Misuse by Wife and Her Father: The Supreme Court strongly condemned the actions of the respondent No.3, a police officer, and her father for exploiting their knowledge and access to the legal system by filing multiple complaints to unduly harass Bansal.

Chronological Misinterpretation Corrected: The apex court corrected the High Court’s factual inaccuracies regarding the sequence of the complaints, affirming that the Hisar complaint came before the Udaipur complaint.

Abuse of Legal Processes: The Court pointed out the strategic abuse of legal procedures, as the respondents did not withdraw the first complaint nor did they clarify the jurisdictional overlap, thereby allowing the legal processes to be misused for personal grievances.

Decision: The FIR No. 156 of 2015 and all associated proceedings were quashed, citing misuse of the legal process by the officer and her father. The court imposed a significant penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the respondents, directing that the amount be split between the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and the appellant, Parteek Bansal, as compensation and deterrence against similar future abuses.

Date of Decision: April 19, 2024

Parteek Bansal vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News