KAPIL AGARWAL & Ors. v. SANJAY SHARMA & Ors.

#2. However, at the same time, if it is found that the subsequent FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In that case, the complaint case will proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. [Para 6][157-E-F]

#3. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to achieve salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment. When the A B C D E F G H KAPIL AGARWAL AND OTHERS v. SANJAY SHARMA AND OTHERS 147 Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed. In the present case, the impugned/subsequent FIR filed by the respondent – original complainant can be said to be an abuse of process of law and the same to be bringing pressure on the accused. This is demonstrated from the facts of the case. Therefore, when the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and to harass the appellants-accused, the High Court ought to have exercised the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India/482 Cr.P.C. and ought to have quashed the impugned FIR to secure the ends of justice. [Paras 6.1, 7 and 8][157-F-G; 158-B-H; 159-A-E] Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 : [2017] 10 SCR 12 – relied on.

#4. The impugned criminal proceedings/FIR registered under Sections 420/406 IPC, are hereby quashed and set aside on the aforesaid grounds. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed anything on merits on the allegations made by respondent no.1 against the appellants as the proceedings in the form of 156(3) Cr.P.C application are pending before the Magistrate. [Para 9][159-F-G]