Delhi High Court: In the petitions filed under Section 4821 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking to quash the FIR registered under Sections 3542, 5063 and 5094 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Neena Bansal Krishna, J., stated that no doubt judicial process, should not be an instrument of operation or needless harassment yet at the same time, this Section could not be used as an instrument by the accused to short circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. In the present case, the Court stated that there was nothing on record to suggest that the FIRs were vexatious or were based on false facts. Thus, the Court stated that the circumstances as discussed did not justify the quashing of the FIRs and accordingly dismissed the present petitions.
Background
In the present case, two petitions were disposed of by the common order, as they raised similar questions of law. The petitioners in both the FIRs were uncle and his son against whom the respective FIRs were registered on the complaint of the niece/cousin sister of the petitioners.
It was submitted that the complainant and the petitioners were a part of the same family and there were cordial relations between them. On 23-01-2017, Petitioner 2 suffered a heart attack. He along with his mother, aged 94 years, shifted to Bangalore to the house of younger son, Petitioner 1 for better treatment. Taking advantage of the first-floor premises lying locked, the complainant and her mother broke open the locks of the balcony and started using the first floor for illegal construction/carpentry work to install an illegal structure on the second floor and terrace of the property.
On 04-11-2017, while Petitioner 1 along with his wife on their way back from Manali, went to their premises to collect warm clothes for the father and the grandmother, and found the locks of the balcony broken open. He informed his father and the grandmother, who made a complaint on which FIR under Section 4485 and 346 of IPC was registered against complainant and her mother. The petitioners asserted that the complainant and her mother, despite being the illegal occupants have raised unauthorised construction in the year 2014 and again in the year 2017-18.
Thus, the petitioners filed the present petition seeking to quash the FIRs, as they contended that these FIRs were filed on false and flimsy grounds. The first petition was filed by Petitioner 1, seeking to quash the FIR dated 24-11-2018, registered under Sections 354, 506 and 509 of IPC. Further, the second petition was filed by Petitioner 2, seeking to quash the FIR dated 5-11-2020, registered under Section 509 of IPC.
The first FIR was registered against Petitioner 1, on the allegations that while he was visiting the suit property on his return from Manali for collecting woollen clothes for the grandmother and the father, he allegedly prepared a video of the complainant without her permission and thereafter, pushed her against the wall and touched her chest inappropriately. Further, the second FIR was registered against Petitioner 2, stating that while complainant along with her mother were going in the car, Petitioner 2 tried to overtake her car from the left side just before the red light and when she looked at him, he showed his middle finger to the complainant, thereby prima facie committing an offence under Section 509 of IPC.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that while it was true that a family dispute regarding property in respect of which several civil and criminal litigations were instituted inter se the parties since 2017, but the core question was whether the two complaints on which the FIRs were registered, could be considered to be malicious and vexatious intended to wreak vengeance on the petitioners.
The Court noted that the two incidents were registered at the gap of about two years. It was not as if the one followed the other immediately. Furthermore, the test was to ascertain whether the allegations made in the FIR if taken on their face value, would not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case against the accused.
The Court stated that the two complaints when read in toto, do disclose the prima facie commission of offence under which the two FIRs were registered. Further, the allegations made in the FIR, could not be held to be absurd or inherently improbable based on which no prudent person could reach a just conclusion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court stated that there might have been inter se litigation, but that could not be a ground to presume that the allegations made in the complaint, were inherently improbable or absurd. The complaints also did not reflect that they were made maliciously with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance.
The Court stated that while dealing with such cases, it was important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there was no legal evidence or where there was evidence, which was clearly inconsistent with the accusations made. The Court stated that when exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, the Court would not ordinarily embark upon an inquiry whether the evidence in question was reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it the accusations would not be sustained, as that was the function of the Trial Court.
The Court stated that no doubt judicial process, should not be an instrument of operation or needless harassment yet at the same time, this Section could not be used as an instrument by the accused to short circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death.
In the present case, the Court stated that there was nothing on record to suggest that the FIRs were vexatious or were based on false facts. There was no contrary legal evidence to discredit the allegations made in the complaint. Thus, it was not a case which merits quashing of the two FIRs, but the merits were left to be tried by the Trial Court, after recording of evidence.
Thus, the Court stated that the circumstances as discussed did not justify the quashing of the FIRs and accordingly dismissed the present petitions.
[Greesh Verma Jairath v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.M.C. 2070 of 2021, decided on 5-3-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Vishal Gosain and Anushka Baruah, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Shoaib Haider, APP for the State; Manu Sharma, Senior Advocate with Kartik Khanna, Mahima Wahi, and Arjun Kakkar, Advocates.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
2. Section 74 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
3. Sections 351(2) and 351 (3) of BNS
5. Section 329(4) of BNS
6. Section 3(5) of BNS
