TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High 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