Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 828 of 2023 1. Rajiv Ranjan Srivastava @ Ranjan Srivastava son of Late Arun Kumar Srivastava 2. Purnima Srivastava @ Pinky Srivastava W/o Rajiv Ranjan Srivastava @ Ranjan Srivastava 3. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava @ Sanjay Srivastava son of Late Arun Kumar Srivastava 4. Hema Srivastava wife of Sanjay Kumar Srivastava All residents of Srivastava Kothi, Anandpuri, PO College More, PS Korra, District Hazaribagh. … Petitioner -versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Fulwa Kachap, wife of late Deepu Kachap, resident of Korra, PO College More, PS Korra, District Hazaribagh. … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. THROUGH HYBRID MODE ---- Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA III For the Petitioner : ---- 4/ 21.02.2024 Proceeding has been taken up in hybrid mode. None of the parties have any complain with respect to the audio and video clarity and quality. 2. the State. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for 3. Petitioners have approached this Court, praying therein to quash
Facts
the First Information Report registered as Korra Police Station Case No.204 of 2023 for offences under Sections 341, 342, 323, 354, 354(b), 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4.
Legal Reasoning
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently Channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. -: 4 :- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 11. Further, it has been held that when there is disputed question of facts and facts needs to be investigated, First Information Report based on such facts cannot be quashed until and unless there is proper investigation. Thus, if all the defence of the petitioners is to be accepted, the same has to be inquired by going deep into the facts and merely on some statement, the same cannot be accepted as gospel truth. 12. In view of what has been held and observed above, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Kumar/Cp-03 (Ananda Sen, J.)
Arguments
Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the First Information Report has been filed with an oblique motive and malafide intention only to harass the petitioners. He submits that with the vexatious intention this First Information Report has been instituted by the complainant. He submits that the petitioners have got no relationship nor they know the complainant, rather the complainant has been set up by the tenant of the petitioner one Pradeep Prasad, who is a member of a Political Party. He submits that the informant, who has filed the case, is also a member of the same political party and is working under said Pradeep Prasad, which -: 2 :- would be evident from the photographs and paper cuttings annexed with the writ petition. Referring to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Salib @ Shalu @ Salim versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 947 and in the case of Mahmood Ali & Others versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in 2023 INSC 684 (neutral citation), he submits that when a First Information Report has been instituted, the Court should be very cautious and should also see attending circumstances which led to filing of the First Information Report. He submits that the documents annexed with the writ petition clearly suggests that the First Information Report has been lodged with malafide intention and the same needs to be quashed. He submits that admittedly, Pradeep Prasad is a tenant of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly submits that the petitioners have also represented before the authorities and filed a First Information Report for the same incident, which gives a different story. Petitioners had also indicated that they may be implicated in a false case and exactly the same thing has happened. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and submits that at the very initial stage, the First Information Report cannot be quashed. He submits that what the petitioners have submitted is their defence. He submits that it is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and then file a report. 6. The petitioners herein have sought to quash the First Information Report of Korra Police Station Case No.204 of 2023. 7. In the instant case, the First Information Report has been lodged by one lady, namely, Fulwa Kachap. She states that she was going in her two wheeler vehicle, when she saw two groups fighting amongst each other. She stated that she knew both the groups and tried to intervene, when the petitioners assaulted her, tore her dress and also abused her. On the aforesaid statement, the First Information Report has been lodged for offences under Sections 341, 342, 323, 354, 354(b), 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 8. From perusal of the First Information Report, I find that a criminal offence, definitely, is made out, which needs to be investigated. So far as contention of the petitioners is concerned, I have carefully gone through the same and the First Information Report. Petitioners take a plea that the instant -: 3 :- case has been instituted at the instance of his tenant, i.e., Pradeep Prasad. The said Pradeep Prasad is not a party to the First Information Report. The defence of the petitioners that the author of the First Information Report is in the same party of Pradeep Prasad and is working under him cannot be inferred. Though there are photographs and paper cuttings, which have been brought on record, those photographs and paper cuttings have got no value in the eyes of law until and unless the same are proved. In these days it is very easy to manipulate photographs, so without there being proper investigation and gathering of proper evidence, this Court cannot give a finding on mere submissions of the petitioners. So far as the complaint, representation and First Information Report filed by the petitioners are concerned, the same cannot be a ground to quash the instant First Information Report. 9. Whether a complaint is malafide or is to wreak vengeance or not in lodging this particular case needs to be investigated. Several materials and documents have to be gathered and statement of several persons and documents are to be seen, which is the work of the investigating officer and not of the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Defence, which the petitioners have taken, needs to be looked into and inquired into by the Investigating agency. On merely making submission by the petitioner, this Court cannot accept such submissions. 10. The law in relation to quashing of the First Information Report is well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 has laid down the parameters for quashing of the First Information Report. It is necessary to quote paragraph 102 of the said judgment, which reads as under: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of