MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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