VIKAS MODI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the arguments were heard on 13/5/2024 and today the order is being pronounced.

(2.) This petition is filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dtd. 31/10/2022 passed by the trial Court taking cognizance on the anvil of a complaint made by respondent No.2 and also seeking for quashing of FIR registered vide Crime No.350/2022 against the petitioners and all subsequent proceedings arose pursuant to that FIR.

(3.) The primary thrust of challenge is based on the ground that respondent No.2 filed a second complaint on the same set of facts and cause of action, which is impugned in this petition. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first complaint filed by respondent No.2 was withdrawn without seeking any liberty vide order dtd. 17/9/2022, but later-on the second complaint has been made without disclosing the facts about the first complaint and its withdrawal. According to him, second complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is an abuse of process of law because the complainant was under obligation to disclose the fact before the court about withdrawal/dismissal of first complaint, but concealment of such material fact is an absolute indication of mala fide as has been shown by the complainant and as such in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and other (2008) 12 SCC 481; Ram Dhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 5 SCC 536; Krishna Lal Chawla and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2021) 5 SCC 435 and K. Jayaram and others v. Bangalore Development Authority and others (2022) 12 SCC 815, the complaint and all subsequent proceedings originated therefrom are liable to be quashed.