Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Subrata Mondal & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 17 July, 2026
2026:CHC-AS:1068
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
2026:CHC-AS:1068
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
2026:CHC-AS:1068
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
42026:CHC-AS:1068
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
2026:CHC-AS:1068
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. 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
2026:CHC-AS:1068
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.)
