Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 323, 406, 498A & 506/34—Cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry demand—Petition to quash FIR on ground that FIR being registered on a second complaint is an abuse of process of law—Assuming the best case of the petitioners that the complaint as well as the FIR are based on identical facts and circumstances, even then as per Section 210 CrPC there is no legal bar to register a subsequent FIR on identical allegations and averments—Petitioners are required to show that the subsequent FIR is an abuse of process of law and has been lodged to harass the accused persons/petitioners—Complaints under Section 200 CrPC was predicated on the fact that petitioners refused to return second respondent’s articles of stridhan/jewellery and had misappropriated the same—Subsequent complaint resulting in FIR is registered under Section 498A/323/406/506/34 of IPC and is predicate on the fact that petitioners have misappropriated the stridhan, dowry articles and jewellery of second respondent—Complaint under Section 200 CrPC and complaint resulting in FIR do have an overlap of misappropriation of stridhan/jewellery and dowry articles of second respondent but they are not identical—FIR, in addition, has separate incidents—FIR is not an abuse of the process of law—Even otherwise Section 210 CrPC permits filing of a complaint and FIR on the same cause of action and in such a scenario, the complaint case is liable to be stayed till finalization of the investigation—Second respondent has already withdrawn her complaint case under Section 200 of CrPC—Petition dismissed. [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 210]
[Paras 28 to 34]
Sections 323, 406, 498A & 506/34—Cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry demand—Petition to quash FIR being barred by limitation—Nature of allegations described in the FIR filed by second respondent are continuing in nature—Second respondent has continuously been subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of non-return of stridhan/jewellery belonging to second respondent at the hands of the petitioners—Second respondent was physically assaulted by petitioners on a subsequent date which would have a new starting point of limitation—Impugned FIR is not barred by limitation—Petition dismissed. [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 468]
[Paras 35 & 36]