Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR, when in the further statement of the first informant’s name of the appellant surfaced for the first time – High Court declining to quash the FIR – Correctness: Held : Appellant not named in the FIR as one of the accused persons – No allegation worth the name in the entire FIR against him – First informant in her further statement made out altogether a different story than what she narrated in the FIR – No offence u/s. 195A and s. 386 made out – Entire case put up by the first informant appears to be concocted and fabricated – Multiple FIRs registered over a period of time which attract wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge – In view thereof, the FIR is quashed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 147, 148, 149, 195A, 386, 504 and
506 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss. 7, 8. [Paras 10, 14, 16 and 24-27]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 195A – Invocation of, by the investigating agency – Correctness:
Held : To give threat to a person to withdraw a complaint or FIR or settle the dispute would not attract s. 195A – None of the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable u/s. 195A disclosed, on plain reading of the FIR and the further statement of the first informant including the statement of the so-called eye witness – Nothing to indicate that the accused persons threatened the first informant with intent that the first informant gives false evidence before the Court of law. [Paras 15 and 16]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 386 – Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt – Invocation of – Necessary ingredients: Held : Victim must be induced to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, etc – Delivery of the property must be with consent which has been obtained by putting the person in fear of any injury – Forcibly taking any property will not come under this definition – It has to be shown that the person was induced to part with the property by putting him in fear of injury – On facts, nothing to indicate that there was actual delivery of possession of property (money) by the person put in fear – In the absence of anything to even remotely suggest that the first informant parted with a particular amount after being put to fear of any injury, no offence u/s. 386 can be said to have been made out. [Paras 22 and 24]
FIR – Quashing of – Invocation of inherent powers u/s. 482 CrPC or extraordinary jurisdiction u/Art. 226 of the Constitution – Duty of the court:
Held : Whenever an accused seeks quashing of the FIR or the criminal proceedings essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely – It would not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of the alleged offence are disclosed or not – In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines – Court is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. [Para 26] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Ramyad Singh v. Emperor Criminal Revision No. 125 of 1931 (Pat) – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.