Abuse of process in duplicate criminal proceedings justified quashing a later FIR filed on identical allegations.

A subsequent FIR on substantially the same allegations may be quashed where the surrounding circumstances show it was filed to harass or pressure the accused, even though the Code permits parallel complaint and police proceedings under Section 210. The Court noted that pending complaint-type proceedings and a police investigation on the same offence are not barred by themselves, but simultaneous proceedings can still be scrutinised for abuse of process. Here, the earlier cheque dishonour proceeding, the pending application under Section 156(3), the delay in lodging the FIR, and the identical accusations showed a pressure tactic rather than a bona fide criminal complaint. The FIR was therefore quashed as abuse of process, while the pending application was left to be decided independently on its merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether a later FIR alleging the same dispute, filed while an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was pending before the Magistrate and after a related Section 138 proceeding had already been initiated, was liable to be quashed as an abuse of process of law.

Analysis: The pending complaint-type proceedings and the police investigation/FIR on the same set of allegations were not, by themselves, barred by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 210 of the Code contemplates the coexistence of a complaint case and a police investigation in respect of the same offence and provides the procedure to be followed in such a situation. At the same time, the existence of parallel proceedings does not immunise a later FIR from scrutiny where the surrounding circumstances show that it has been instituted only to pressurise or harass the accused. On the facts, the earlier Section 138 proceeding, the pending Section 156(3) application, the long delay before lodging the FIR, and the identical accusations together indicated that the FIR was used as a pressure tactic rather than a bona fide criminal invocation. In exercise of the High Court's powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, such proceedings can be interdictable to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The FIR was held to be an abuse of process of law and was quashed. The matter was decided in favour of the appellants, while leaving the pending Section 156(3) proceedings to be dealt with independently on their own merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent FIR on substantially the same allegations may be quashed where the surrounding facts show that it has been filed to harass or pressure the accused, even though the Code permits parallel complaint and police proceedings under Section 210.

---