IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) CRR 1401 of 2024 Sri Subrata Mondal & Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr. For the Petitioners : Mr. Debasis Kar, Mr. Arka Tilak Bhandra, Ms. Suhana Parvin, Ms. Paramita Mukherjee. For the State : Mr. Pritam Roy, Mr. Sayan Mukherjee, Ms. Ananya Chakraborty. Judgment reserved on : 14.07.2026 Judgment delivered on : 17.07.2026 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.: 1. The revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the First Information Report vide Duttapukur P. S. First Information Report No.922/2023 dated 07.09.2023 under Sections 406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to G. R. No. 2286 of 2023. 2 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the opposite party no.2/de facto complainant initially lodged an F.I.R. (1st FIR) leading to Nimta P. S. Case No. 148 of 2023 dated 27.03.2023 alleging offences under Sections 498A/323/354C/376/506/34 IPC against the petitioners and others in connection with a matrimonial dispute. 3. Subsequently, she also lodged (2nd FIR) Nimta P. S. Case No. 236 of 2023 dated 21.05.2023 under Section 406 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act alleging non-return of her stridhan articles and praying for recovery thereof. 4. It appears from the first FIR that the opposite party no.2/de facto complainant left her matrimonial home on 11.03.2023 and filed the first FIR on 27.03.2023. Subsequently the second FIR was lodged on 21.05.2023. The FIR in the present case being the 3rd FIR has been filed on 07.09.2023 making similar allegations as in the first FIR. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed written notes and relied upon the following judgments:- a) 2001 (5) SCC 131 (T. T. Antony etc. etc. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.). b) 2025 SCC OnLine SC 358 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Surendra Singh Rathore). “9. From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, the following principles emerge regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR: 3 9.1 When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered. 9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances. 9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy. 9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances. 9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different.” 6. Now, the FIR in the present case is the third FIR initiated on 07.09.2023 by the opposite party no.2/de facto complainant making similar allegations, as made in the first FIR being Nimta P. S. Case No. 148 of 2023, which also included an allegation under Section 376 of the IPC against her brother-in-law. 7. In Kapil Agarwal & Ors. Vs Sanjay Sharma & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2021, on 01.03.2021, the Supreme Court held:- “5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. It is the case on behalf of the appellants that as on the same allegations, the private respondent- complainant has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is pending before the learned Magistrate, the impugned FIR with the same allegations and averments would not be maintainable, and therefore, the FIR lodged with the police station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad deserves to be quashed and set aside. The aforesaid cannot be accepted for the simple reason that Code of Criminal Procedure permits such an eventuality of a complaint case and enquiry or trial by the Magistrate in a complaint case and an investigation by the police 4 pursuant to the FIR. At this stage, Section 210 Cr.P.C. is required to be referred to, which reads as under: “210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence – (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject- matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. (2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.” Thus, as per Section 210 Cr.P.C., when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, i.e., in a complaint case, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by the Magistrate, it appears to the Magistrate that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. It also provides that if a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. It also further provides that if the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any 5 offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. Thus, merely because on the same set of facts with the same allegations and averments earlier the complaint is filed, there is no bar to lodge the FIR with the police station with the same allegations and averments. 6. 6. 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. 6.1 As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, 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 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. 6.2 As held by this Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Section 482 Cr.P.C. is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Same are the powers with the High Court, when it exercises the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. We are not expressing anything on merits whether, any case is made out against the appellants for the offences alleged in 156(3) Cr.P.C. application as the same is pending before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate is to take call on the same. Therefore, when the impugned FIR is nothing but an 6 abuse of process of law and to harass the appellants- accused, we are of the opinion that 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.” 8. As such it is clear that the present (3rd) FIR is an abuse of process of law and has been filed only to harass the accused persons by bringing pressure upon them and as such is liable to be quashed to serve the ends of justice. 9. CRR 1401 of 2024 is allowed. 10. The proceeding being Duttapukur P. S. First Information Report No.922/2023 dated 07.09.2023 under Sections 406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to G. R. No. 2286 of 2023, is hereby quashed. 11. All connected application, if any, stands disposed of. 12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 13. Let a copy of the Judgment be sent to the learned trial court at once. 14. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)