Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1320 (DEL)

DEVINDER SINGH NAGI v. S. H. O.

2002-09-04

M.A.KHAN

body2002
Mahmood Ali Khan ( 1 ). The petitioner Devinder Singh Nagi has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. for quashing of the FIR No. 26/2001 registered against him for offences under Section 323/342/ 356/379/427/452/506 read with section 34 IPC at P. S. Krishna Nagar, charge-sheet and the proceeding emanating therefrom pending in the court of Mr. Ramesh Kumar, M. M. ,karkardooma Courts. ( 2 ) THE case FIR No. 26/2001 is registered against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent no. 2 Sudhir kumar Jain on 30. 1. 2001. Mr. Jain in his complaint to the SHO had alleged that on 30. 1. 2001 at about 6. 30 A. M. he left his home for Hanuman Mandir and on the way he went to his another house E-7-A/4, Krishna Nagar for looking into the arrangement for pooja being conducted there He sat in the pooja for some time. Thereafter he went into the house and when he was emerging therefrom he heard abuses emanating from the pooja room. He saw that the accused Devinder Singh Nagi along with three or more persons was hurling abuses. He immediately rang up the police control room at 100 number. He also tried to pacify the petitioner and his associates but to no effect. The petitioner exhorted his companions to beat up the complainant. They forcibly entered into the inner portion of the house from the pooja room. They caught hold of him and took him to a room where the petitioner accused along with his accomplices thrashed him with fist, kicks and dandas. The complainant tried to escape but the accuse. d restrained him. They tore his clothes and even his gold chain worn by him in the neck was snatched away. The petitioner accused was shouting that he would kill the complainant in case he failed to pay double the price of his property and pay money demanded by him and that he was a very dangerous man and he would ruin him and his children. At the time of the occurrence Thekedar sunil and Panditji who was performing the pooja besides Chowkidar Suresh were present. in the meantime police came. The petitioner and other co-accused tried to escape along with gold chain of the complainant but the petitioner was apprehended by the complainant and was handed over to the police. At the time of the occurrence Thekedar sunil and Panditji who was performing the pooja besides Chowkidar Suresh were present. in the meantime police came. The petitioner and other co-accused tried to escape along with gold chain of the complainant but the petitioner was apprehended by the complainant and was handed over to the police. The police took him and the petitioner accused to the hospital where the medical examination of the complainant was conducted. The complainant had suffered multiple injuries at his body. Finding that he was not getting proper treatment the complainant then went to the clinic of Dr. Chhatwal, Som Bazar and then he was advised to be admitted in J. M. I. Hospital, vikas Marg extn. He was admitted in the hospital. He was suffering from chest pain and had vomiting 2/3 times. The complainant informed the police of his presence in the hospital but nobody came. On the next day he gave a complaint to the SHO, P. S. Krishna Nagar in writing. He prayed for action against the accused for committing offences as mentioned above. ( 3 ) AFTER the investigation was conducted the police has filed the charge-sheet for trial of the. petitioner accused in the court for the offences under Section 323/343/427/452/506 read with Section 34 IPC. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has contended that the FIR no. 26/2001 and the charge-sheet filed by the police for his trial are malicious and revengeful. According to him no occurrence as alleged has taken place. On the other hand it was alleged in the petition that respondent no. 2 was raising an illegal construction in premises no. E-7a/4 and E-7a/5, Krishna Nagar but no action was being taken by the authorities for stopping it. On 30. 1. 2001 he was taking photographs of the unauthorised construction going on there. Respondent no. 2 accompanied by 3/4 persons reached there, snatched away his Sony camera and dragged him into the compound of the above mentioned property. He was shut in a room after filthy abuses were hurled upon him. The petitioner tried to shout through the public address system which was being used by the Pandit for jagran in the premises but his mouth was gagged by respondent no. 2 by his hand. The petitioner tried to run upstairs but he was dragged by respondent no. He was shut in a room after filthy abuses were hurled upon him. The petitioner tried to shout through the public address system which was being used by the Pandit for jagran in the premises but his mouth was gagged by respondent no. 2 by his hand. The petitioner tried to run upstairs but he was dragged by respondent no. 2 back into the room and he was given severe beating there. The petitioner had filed a civil writ against respondent no. 2 for the unauthorised construction carried on by him and respondent no. 2 had come to know of it that the petitioner was to appear in the court on 30. 1. 2001 for the stay against the illegal construction. The petitioner was beaten up and he was insulted and humiliated by filthy abuses. The petitioner s wife and other neighbourere starting shouting from outside the compound of the house of respondent no. 2 demanding his release. The petitioner was released after the police arrived. The police then took him to Swami Dyanand hospital for treatment. The petitioner made a written complaint against respondent no. 2 and his associates. Head Constable Lokesh recorded his statement in connection with this incident but no FIR has been registered against respondent no. 2. In order to save themselves, respondent no. 2 and his associates in connivance with the SHO of P. S. Krishna Nagar have got the instant FIR registered against the petitioner. SHO is hand and glove with respondent no. 2, therefore, he had refused to register the FIR lodged by petitioner against respondent no. 2. The petitioner, therefore, had to file a criminal complaint against respondent no. 2, which is pending. In order to further pressurise the petitioner to withdraw his petition in the High Court, the SHO had booked the petitioner under Section 107 and 150 Cr. P. C. Case FIR No. 277/02 has also been registered at the instance of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against respondent no. 2 but no action has been taken by the police for stopping the illegal construction. Respondent no. 2 and his accomplices had snatched away sony camera from the hand of the petitioner on 30. 1. 2001 but recently respondent no. 2 had paid Rs. 40,500/- to the petitioner in the presence of one Mohinder Chopra and bhagwan Dass as cost of the camera. Respondent no. 2 and his accomplices had snatched away sony camera from the hand of the petitioner on 30. 1. 2001 but recently respondent no. 2 had paid Rs. 40,500/- to the petitioner in the presence of one Mohinder Chopra and bhagwan Dass as cost of the camera. The earlier complaint made by the petitioner has fell on deaf ear and no action has been taken by the police. Instead a false case has been registered against the petitioner in order to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, sought quashing of the FIR and the charge-sheet filed against him. ( 5 ) IN State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Chaudhary bhajan Lal and Ors. JT 1990 Vol. IV SC 650 following guidelines were laid down by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR. 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 agai. nst 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. 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 malafide 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. " ( 6 ) THE petitioner is seeking quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceeding arising therefrom on the ground that they are malicious, revengeful and have been filed for ulterior motive in order to compel him to withdraw his civil writ against respondent no. 2 etc. His case, as such, at the most would be governed by the guideline no. 7 aforesaid. On the complaint lodged by the petitioner FIR has not been registered. But the petitioner had already filed a criminal complaint under section 200 of Cr. P. C. for prosecution of respondent no. 2 which is pending before a court. The petitioner has also filed a civil writ petition against the alleged unauthorised construction being carried out by respondent no. 2 which is also pending. It also appears from the averment of the petition that the petitioner was involved in a proceeding under Section 151/107 cr. P. C. But it is an admitted case of the petitioner that on the complaint of respondent no. 2 the case has been registered at the police station and after investigation a challan for his prosecution has been filed which is pending. The petitioner wants that the challan and criminal proceeding against him be quashed. ( 7 ) THE Supreme Court in Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another 1997 (4)SCC 241 has held that though the power of the High Court under Section 482 of cr. P. C. is very wide yet the same must be exercised sparingly and cautiously. The petitioner wants that the challan and criminal proceeding against him be quashed. ( 7 ) THE Supreme Court in Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another 1997 (4)SCC 241 has held that though the power of the High Court under Section 482 of cr. P. C. is very wide yet the same must be exercised sparingly and cautiously. It was further held that only in case where the High Court finds that there had been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, the High court may in its discretion prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Referring to this judgement in Rajinder prasad Vs. Bashir and Ors. 200l (III)AD Crl. SC 384 the supreme Court observed that unless some special reasons exist for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 cr. P. C. , the petition cannot be allowed. In State of bihar and another etc. Vs. V. Shri P. P. Sharma and another etc. AIR 1991 SC 1260 it was laid down that if the FIR is lodged for extraneous consideration in order to harass the petitioner, the FIR was liable to be quashed. In Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi AIR 1999 SC 1216 it has been held by the Supreme Court that power of quashing of a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and. that too in the rarest of the rare cases. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. P. P. Sharma 1992 (Supp. 1) SCC 222, State of maharashtra Vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri and Ors. (1996) 1 scc 542 . In the last case the Supreme Court has observed "malafides or animus of complainant or prosecution are not relevant, being on the basis of the allegation in the complaint a prima facie case is made out the High Court has no jurisdiction to quash the proceeding". ( 8 ) THE court may now examine the case of the petitioner on the touchstone of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases and state of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and ors. (supra), discussed above. ( 8 ) THE court may now examine the case of the petitioner on the touchstone of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases and state of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and ors. (supra), discussed above. In the instant case apart from the bald allegation of the petitioner about the registration of the case against him and the filing of the criminal proceedings for his prosecution are actuated by malice or they are revengeful there is no material before this court to hold that this petition has been filed with ulterior motive to wreak vengeance or it is malicious. The question whether the allegations made by the petitioner are false or fabricated and the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case are to be gone into and decided by the court after trial. Bald allegations by the petitioner will not be sufficient for this court to hold that the criminal proceedings manifestly attended with malafide or they are malicious or have been filed with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance so as to fall in guideline 7 of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Chaudhary bhajan Lal s case. The case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare case or even disclose special circumstances where the court should quash the criminal proceeding instituted against the petitioner at threshold exercising its supervisory power under section 482 Cr. P. C. Petition, therefore, has no merit. It is dismissed.