Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – FIR – Quashing of – FIR alleging that to settle a land dispute the informant and his brother visited the house of the appellant on their own free will wherein the appellant and the other co-accused assaulted the informant and his brother, forcibly took Rs. 2 lakh from the informants’ pocket and thereafter took their signatures forcibly on a blank paper – FIR registered u/ss. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC – High Court declining to quash the FIR – Correctness:
Held: Entire case put up by the informant on the face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated – Multiple FIRs have been registered against the appellant and the other accused over a period of time which attract wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge – Continuation of the criminal case arising from the FIR would be nothing but abuse of the process of the law – Thus, the impugned order passed by the High Court set aside and the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 395, 504, 506 and 323. [Paras 29, 30, 35 and 36]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 395 – Punishment for Dacoity – FIR alleging that to settle a land dispute the informant and his brother visited the house of the appellant wherein the appellant and the co-accused assaulted the informant and his brother and forcibly took R. 2 lakh from the informants’ pocket – Registration of FIR for the offence punishable u/s. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC – Correctness:
Held: s. 395 is not applicable to the instant case – Prosecution blindfoldedly and without understanding the true purport of the offence of “dacoity” registered the FIR for the offence punishable u/s. 395 – None of the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity disclosed – Entire case put up by the first informant appears to be fabricated – At the time of alleged incident, taking away of Rs. 2 Lakh from the pocket of the informant forcibly by the accused persons would not fall within the ambit of the words “for that end” occurring in s. 390 – Even according to the informant, with a view to settle the land dispute, the informant and his brother visited the house of the appellant on their own free will and volition – It is only after reaching the house of the appellant that the entire incident is alleged to have occurred. [Paras 17 and 18]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 390 – Robbery – Theft when amounts to robbery:
Held: Three ingredients mentioned in s.390 must always be satisfied before theft can amount to robbery – Firstly, the offender must have voluntarily caused or attempted to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint – Secondly this must be in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft – Thirdly the offender must voluntarily cause or attempt to cause to any person hurt etc., for that end, that is, in order to the committing of the theft or for the purpose of committing theft or for carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft. [Paras 14 and 15]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 504 – Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace – Necessary ingredient u/s. 504:
AND ORS.
Held: Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of s. 504 if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace – Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case – There cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence u/s. 504 if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant. [Paras 25 and 26]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 506 – Offence of criminal intimidation – When:
Held: Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant – On facts, to settle a land dispute the informant and his brother visited the house of the appellant on their own free will wherein the appellant and the other co-accused assaulted the informant and his brother, forcibly took Rs. 2 lakh from the informants’ pocket and thereafter took their signatures forcibly on a blank paper and FIR was registered u/ss. 395, 504, 506 and 323 – Prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable u/s. 506 may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not u/s.
504 – In the FIR, all that the informant has stated is that abusive language was used by the accused persons – What exactly was uttered in the form of abuses not stated in the FIR – One of the essential elements constituting an offence u/s. 504 is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult – Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult – In the absence thereof, not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult present – Thus, case of criminal intimidation punishable u/ss. 504 and 506(2) not made out. [Para 29]
Interpretation of statutes – Penal statute – Interpretation of: Held: Must be strictly construed – Court must see that the thing charged is an offence within the plain meaning of the words used and must not strain the words. [Paras 19 and 21]
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]
FIR – Importance and object of:
Held: FIR in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial – Object of insisting upon lodging of the FIR to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as names of the eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. [Para 32]
Delay/ Laches – Delay in lodging FIR – Ground to quash FIR: Held: Delay in the registration of the FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing of the FIR – However, delay with other attending circumstances rendering the entire case put up by the prosecution inherently improbable, may at times become a good ground to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings – If the FIR, like the instant one, lodged after a period of more than one year without disclosing the date and time of the alleged incident and further without any plausible and convincing explanation for such delay, the accused cannot defend himself in the trial – Allegations are too vague AND ORS.
and general – In the absence of all this material, the State cannot prove its case against the accused persons. [Paras 32 and 33]
Criminal Law – Criminal antecedents of the accused – Effect of, on the criminal proceedings:
Held: Criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings – An accused has a legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever bad his antecedents may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose commission of any offence then the court should not decline to quash the criminal case – Initiation of prosecution has adverse and harsh consequence for the persons named as accused – Thus, the requirement and need to balance the law enforcement power and protection of citizens from injustice and harassment must be maintained – State owes a duty to ensure that no crime goes unpunished as also owes a duty to ensure that none of its subjects are unnecessarily harassed. [Para 34] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604: [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; Bishambhar Nath v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1941 Oudh 476; Karuppa Gounden v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1918 Madras 821; Otaruddi Manjhi v. Kafiluddi Manjhi, (1900-01) 5 C.W.N. 372; King Emperor v. Mathura Thakur, (190102) 6 C.W.N. 72; King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522: [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 147; Directorate of Revenue and another v. Mohammed Nisar Holia, (2008) 2 SCC 370: [2007] 12 SCR 906 – 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.