Filing Multiple FIRs on Same Facts Is Gross Abuse of Law: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has decisively quashed a third FIR filed by a de facto complainant against her in-laws, ruling that the repetitive registration of criminal cases on the same set of allegations constitutes a clear abuse of the process of law intended solely to harass the accused.

A single-judge bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) heard the revisional application seeking to quash the proceedings initiated under Sections 406, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court scrutinized the history of the dispute, noting that the complainant had already registered two prior FIRs involving similar matrimonial grievances and allegations regarding the non-return of 'stridhan' articles.

Repetitive FIRs as a Weapon of Harassment

The Court observed that the first FIR was lodged shortly after the complainant left her matrimonial home, followed by a second FIR specifically for the recovery of articles under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The third FIR, which the Court analyzed in the present case, largely mirrored the allegations already under investigation. Relying on the principles established in State of Rajasthan Vs. Surendra Singh Rathore ( "2025 SCC OnLine SC 358": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 313), the bench emphasized that while the law allows for concurrent investigations in specific scenarios, it does not permit criminal proceedings to degenerate into a weapon of harassment.

In its reasoning, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's stance in Kapil Agarwal & Ors. Vs Sanjay Sharma & Ors., noting: "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... 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."

Court's Findings on Abuse of Process

Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) highlighted that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is designed to prevent the misuse of the legal machinery. The Court found that the third FIR was filed primarily to bring undue pressure upon the accused persons.

The Court has following directions:

"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."

Key Takeaways

Shield Against Over-Litigation

Litigants cannot keep filing fresh FIRs on the same set of facts to keep the accused under perpetual legal threat once the investigation has already been set in motion.

Harassment Invalidates FIR

If the court finds that a subsequent FIR is motivated by a desire to harass or pressure the accused rather than seek justice for a fresh incident, it is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..

Scope of Multiple FIRs

Multiple FIRs are only permissible if they present rival versions of facts, different ambits of the same circumstances, or reveal a larger conspiracy that was previously unknown.

Ratio

A subsequent FIR based on identical allegations and facts as a previous FIR is an abuse of the process of law. Such proceedings are liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers to secure the ends of justice and prevent criminal law from being used as a tool for harassment.

Background:

The dispute arose from a matrimonial conflict where the opposite party no.2 (complainant) left her matrimonial home in March 2023. She filed her first FIR under Sections 498A, 376, and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Two months later, she filed a second FIR under the Dowry Prohibition Act regarding her 'stridhan'. The present case concerned a third FIR filed in September 2023, which the petitioners argued was redundant. The Court agreed, citing T. T. Antony etc. etc. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., and concluded that allowing the third FIR to proceed would be a miscarriage of justice.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRR 1401 of 2024
NeutralCitation: 2026:CHC-AS:1068
Case Title: Sri Subrata Mondal & Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Debasis Kar, Mr. Arka Tilak Bhandra, Ms. Suhana Parvin, Ms. Paramita Mukherjee.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pritam Roy, Mr. Sayan Mukherjee, Ms. Ananya Chakraborty.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CAL) 47