2023 (8) TMI 1359 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking quashing of Criminal proceedings - FIR lodged after a period of 14 years from the alleged illegal acts of the appellants - Illegal mining - exploiting poor persons - invocation of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution - HELD THAT - Even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence as alleged are disclosed. It is pertinent to note that the FIR in question came to be lodged after a period of 14 years from the alleged illegal acts of the appellants. It is also pertinent to note that in the FIR no specific date or time of the alleged offences has been disclosed. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely - The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but 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. The impugned order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is hereby set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the FIR bearing No. 127 of 2022 should be quashed?

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the FIR bearing No. 127 of 2022 should be quashed?

Leave granted. This appeal is at the instance of the original accused persons of the First Information Report (FIR) No. 127 of 2022 registered with the Mirzapur Police Station, District Saharanpur, State of U.P. dated 04.06.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 342, 386, 504 and 506 resply of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 08.07.2022 in the Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 7335 of 2022 by which the High Court rejected the Writ Petition and thereby declined to quash the said FIR for the offences enumerated above.

Thus, a plain reading of the aforesaid FIR reveals that the original first informant namely Ravinder Kumar (the respondent No. 3 herein) claims to be an illiterate person and was in the employment of the accused persons from 01.08.2008. It is alleged that taking advantage of the helplessness of the first informant, the appellant No. 2 herein, Abdul Wajid obtained his signature on some papers on 01.08.2008 and later, the appellant No. 2 kept on compelling the first informant to sign other papers and bank cheques without the consent of the first informant and without bringing anything to the notice of the first informant in regard to the cheques, blank papers, etc. It is also alleged that the first informant was fraudulently appointed as a Director of a Company by the appellant 3 Mohd. Iqbal and the appellant No. 2 Abdul Wajid. Upon coming to know about the said fake appointment, the first informant resigned from the Company on 22.03.2017. It is further alleged that a Writ Criminal (Misc) Petition No. 2342 of 2019 was also filed before the High Court in the name of the first informant. The first informant was also allegedly forced to work in the office of the accused persons virtually as a hostage, and threats were administered to kill him. It is alleged that the accused persons are involved in illegal mining, etc. and are exploiting poor persons.

The appellants herein went before the High Court by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 7335 of 2022 for the purpose of getting the FIR quashed. The High Court declined to quash the FIR by way of an order dated 08.07.2022. Considering the fact that there are large number of criminal cases lodged against the petitioners and prima facie allegations with regard to commissioning of cognizable offence in the FIR are disclosed, we decline to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction in the matter in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779, as also in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315.

In view of the aforesaid, the appellants are before this Court with the present appeal. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants herein in his written submissions has stated that the allegations in the First Information Report are not only absurd but also highly improbable given that the said incident allegedly occurred in the year 2008 while the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of 14 years, that is, on 4.06.2022, which has not been explained. The alleged First Information Report is absolutely false and frivolous, and on a reading of the said FIR, the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 342, 386, 504 and 506 of IPC is clearly not made out against the Petitioners. Although the Complainant has alleged that upon coming to know about his fraudulent appointment as a Director of a Company, he resigned from the Company way back in the year 2017 but no complaint during this period was ever lodged by the Complainant. Further the name of the said Company has also not been mentioned in the FIR.

Ms. Garima Prasad, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of U.P. in her written submissions has stated that the Investigation has been completed and chargesheet is ready to file against the Petitioners but due to stay order of this Hon'ble Court, the chargesheet could not be submitted. The Petitioner Mohd. Iqbal @ Bala, his brother and their sons are the mining mafia in western Uttar Pradesh and several number of criminal cases are registered against him and his family members. The Investigation Officer also recorded the statement of the independent witnesses and collected the other material evidence against the Petitioner and other accused persons, which prima facie shows that the Petitioner ad other accused persons have committed the serious offences.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the FIR bearing No. 127 of 2022 should be quashed? We are of the view that even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence as alleged are disclosed. It is pertinent to note that the FIR in question came to be lodged after a period of 14 years from the alleged illegal acts of the appellants. It is also pertinent to note that in the FIR no specific date or time of the alleged offences has been disclosed.

The entire case put up by the first informant on the face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated. At this stage, we may refer to the parameters laid down by this Court for quashing of an FIR in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. The parameters are:-

"(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."�

We are of the view that the case of the present appellants falls within the parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7 resply of Bhajan Lal (supra).

At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute 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. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but 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. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.

In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:-

"5. "¦Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (