Arun Kashyap vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.0839 of 2023, dated 19.12.2023, under 384 and 500 IPC, Police Station Nagar Kotwali, District Haridwar, with related reliefs.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, the respondent no.3 (“the informant”) is the Incharge Executive Engineer posted at Haridwar. The petitioner has been approaching the informant and demanding money from him, but the informant did not ever entertain him. On 16.12.2023, the FIR states that a person approached the informant and advised him that he should pay heed to the demands that were made by the petitioner or else, the informant would have to pay a very heavy cost. Thereafter, on 18.12.2023, a defamatory, insulting and false story was published by the petitioner against the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire FIR is false; if on 16.12.2023, some unknown person had approached the informant, the FIR would have been lodged immediately; it is unbelievable that some unknown person would approach the informant advising him to pay money to the petitioner; the petitioner never visited the office of the informant; police is after the petitioner; police in large number have visited the petitioner’s house claiming that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation.

It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case, the FIR discloses commission of offence, generally, no interference is warranted unless there are compelling circumstances to do so.

In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial. This is a jurisdiction, which is much wide, but, quite guided by the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of cases. In the case of of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court illustratively gave a list of circumstances under which such interference may be warranted. In Para 102, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(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.

What is essentially being argued on behalf of the petitioner is that the story, as narrated in the FIR, is not believable. When these lines were dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the FIR is based on mala fide.

An FIR may not, at the threshold, be quashed merely on the assumption that it may not be believable. The matter needs to be investigated if the FIR discloses commission of offence. Of course, mala fide is one such ground, which may warrant interference in such matters, but, then, there should be material to exhibit at the first instance for the Court to make any indulgence on the basis of mala fide, which is essentially lacking in the instant case.

Whether the petitioner has ever approached the informant or not in his office? Whether the petitioner has ever demanded money from the petitioner or not, or/and whether on 16.12.2023, some person had approached and advised the informant to pay heed to the demands made by the petitioner or not? These are the matters, which would fall for scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the case may be.

Insofar as the role of police in approaching the petitioner is concerned, it may not be questioned at this moment. There is an FIR lodged against the petitioner, which the Investigating Officer is under obligation to investigate. That may not be any reason to make any interference.

The FIR, in the instant case, definitely discloses commission of offences. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

The petition is dismissed in limine.