9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1363 - SC - Indian LawsDacoity - Legality of SCN - whether the FIR registered for the offences enumerated discloses commission of any offence? - 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 of dacoity punishable under Section 395 of the IPC is made out. What amounts to dacoity has been explained by us in detail in the judgment and order delivered by this very Bench in Criminal Appeal MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 2023 (8) TMI 1361 - SUPREME COURT - In the same manner none of the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 365 342 and 506 resply of the IPC are disclosed on plain reading of the FIR. The FIR is nothing but abuse of the process of law. 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. 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 VERSUS GOLCONDA LINGA SWAMY AND ORS. 2004 (7) TMI 696 - SUPREME COURT 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 impugned order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is hereby set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the FIR No. 0007 of 2023 discloses the commission of any offence. 2. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the FIR. 3. Whether the allegations in the FIR are inherently improbable and constitute an abuse of the process of law. Summary: Issue 1: FIR Disclosure of Offence The Court examined whether the FIR No. 0007 of 2023, registered for offences under Sections 395, 386, 365, 342, and 506 of the IPC, disclosed any offence. The FIR alleged that the complainant's company completed construction work for Glocal University but was not paid the remaining amount of Rs. 1.20 crore. It also claimed that construction materials worth Rs. 1.86 crore were retained by the accused. The FIR further alleged that in 2021, the complainant was threatened and robbed by the accused when he demanded his dues. The Court found that even if the allegations were accepted as true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity under Section 395 IPC were made out. Similarly, the offences under Sections 365, 342, and 506 IPC were not disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR, leading the Court to conclude that the FIR was an abuse of the process of law. Issue 2: High Court's Refusal to Quash the FIR The High Court had declined to quash the FIR, stating that it disclosed a cognizable offence and referred to the legal precedents in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra. The High Court dismissed the petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to apply for anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court failed to consider that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of two years without specifying the date and time of the alleged incident, which made the allegations appear concocted and fabricated. Issue 3: Inherently Improbable Allegations and Abuse of Process The Court referred to the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal's case for quashing an FIR. It noted that the case fell within parameters 1, 5, and 7, which include situations where the allegations do not constitute any offence, are absurd and inherently improbable, or are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. The Court emphasized the duty to look into the FIR with care and consider the overall circumstances, including the registration of multiple FIRs against the appellant, which indicated a pattern of harassment and vendetta. The Court also cited the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of judicial process. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 0007 of 2023. The Court clarified that the observations made in this judgment were relevant only for the FIR in question and would not affect any other pending criminal prosecutions or proceedings.
|
