Subsequent FIRs alleging distinct and graver incidents are permissible and not liable to quashing as successive complaints.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of (i) Raha P.S. Case No. 299/2020 and the corresponding charge-sheet and PRC Case No. 237/2021 under Section 498A IPC; (ii) Raha P.S. Case No. 159/2021 and PRC Case No. 676/2023 under Section 498A IPC; and (iii) DV Case No. 172/2023 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The petitioner’s wife initially lodged Raha P.S. Case No. 105/2020 alleging dowry demands, abuse, and attempts to kill her with a knife and kerosene. She subsequently stated that the complaint arose from a misunderstanding and entered into a settlement with her husband; the police submitted a final report, which was accepted by the Magistrate.

Before acceptance of the final report, however, she lodged Raha P.S. Case No. 299/2020, alleging further dowry-related abuse, throwing of boiling water, and an attempt to kill her with a machete. The police filed a charge-sheet under Section 498A IPC.

After a further settlement agreement dated 25 March 2021, the wife again complained to the Superintendent of Police, alleging continued dowry demands, eviction, strangulation, and other acts of cruelty, resulting in Raha P.S. Case No. 159/2021 and a subsequent charge-sheet.

She later instituted proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act alleging dowry harassment, attempted burning, coercion to transfer land, termination of pregnancy, and other forms of domestic violence.

Whether the FIRs, charge-sheets, and proceedings under Section 498A IPC were liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that they arose from repeated and substantially similar allegations, settlements, and alleged abuse of the process of law.

Whether the subsequent FIRs constituted impermissible second or successive FIRs concerning the same transaction, or whether they disclosed distinct and graver occurrences permitting separate criminal proceedings.

Whether the proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were liable to be quashed along with the criminal proceedings.

The Court applied the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the illustrative categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, under which quashing may be ordered where the allegations do not disclose an offence, are inherently improbable, are legally barred, or constitute proceedings manifestly attended with mala fides.

It relied on Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 5 SCC 435, and Tarak Dash Mukharjee v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2121, for the principle that multiple complaints or FIRs concerning the same incident should generally be deprecated.

However, under Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 6 SCC 384, the permissibility of a subsequent FIR depends on applying the test of “sameness”: a second FIR relating to the same incident or transaction may be quashed, but a subsequent FIR concerning a distinct occurrence or containing a materially different and graver version may be maintained.

The Court also treated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act as beneficial, protective proceedings distinct from ordinary criminal prosecution.

The Court held that the allegations in Raha P.S. Case No. 299/2020, including dowry demands, throwing boiling water, and an alleged attempt to kill the complainant, prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence under Section 498A IPC and could not be evaluated or rejected at the quashing stage merely because the parties had subsequently entered into an agreement.

Although the complaints shared a common matrimonial background, the Court found that the subsequent reports alleged continuing cruelty and progressively graver acts, including a demand for ₹10 lakhs, eviction, and attempted strangulation. Applying the test in Anju Chaudhary, it concluded that the later complaints were not merely duplicate FIRs concerning one identical occurrence but related to subsequent or materially distinct incidents.

The Court further held that the Domestic Violence Act proceedings served a separate protective and remedial purpose and could not be quashed merely because parallel criminal proceedings existed.

It also declined to quash DV Case No. 172/2023 under the Domestic Violence Act, holding that it was a distinct beneficial proceeding for protection of the aggrieved woman.

The criminal petition was accordingly dismissed and disposed of.