Can’t invoke criminal law twice on same charges: Calcutta HC

Kolkata: Holding that criminal law cannot be set in motion twice on the same matrimonial allegations, the Calcutta High Court has quashed a second criminal case in a dowry-related dispute, observing that parallel proceedings on identical accusations would amount to abuse of the legal process.

Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta passed the order while hearing a plea filed by a husband and his parents, who had challenged a later criminal case lodged by the wife even as an earlier case on the same allegations was already pending.

The court noted that the wife had initially lodged a police complaint accusing her husband and in-laws of mental and physical cruelty in connection with dowry demands, including a claim for reimbursement of money allegedly spent on the medical treatment of their minor daughter. That case, in which a charge sheet had already been filed, is still pending before the trial court.

During the pendency of the earlier case, the wife initiated a second criminal proceeding through a court complaint, leading to registration of another FIR with additional penal sections. After examining both complaints and the case diary, the High Court found that the substance of the allegations in the second FIR was the same as those made earlier.

The court observed that allegations of physical assault in the later complaint were general and vague, with no specific role attributed to any of the accused. It also noted that the claims were not supported by medical documents and that no clear date, time or manner of assault had been indicated.

Reiterating settled principles of criminal law, the court held that two FIRs cannot arise from the same set of facts and allegations, as this would subject the accused to repeated prosecution for the same dispute. A second FIR, the court clarified, is permissible only when it relates to a distinct incident or discloses a different set of offences, which was not the case here. The court also took note that the wife had already approached the court seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter, and that the core dispute between the parties remained unchanged.

Concluding that the second FIR merely repeated the earlier allegations with minor additions, the High Court quashed the later criminal proceeding against the husband and his parents and directed that the order be communicated to the trial court for information and compliance