Bhagirath Chaudhary vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

R.C. Khulbe, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of present writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR dated

24.07.2021, registered as FIR No. 0334 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 328, 323 and 506 IPC at Police Station Vikas Nagar,

District Dehradun.

Facts, sans unnecessary details, are that an FIR was submitted by the respondent no.3/complainant against the petitioner, herein, with the

allegations of committing sexual offence.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated. Earlier, petitioner has lodged an FIR against

respondent no. 3 which is registered as FIR No. 333 of 2021, and the present FIR has been lodged by respondent no. 3 as a counter blast. It is further

submitted that there is no medical on record regarding sexual offence; apart from that the respondent is major.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 fairly submitted that it is true that the petitioner lodged the above FIR against the complainant who, in turn,

lodged the present FIR against the petitioner. He further submitted that the FIR was lodged against the petitioner due to misconception of fact and she

want to withdraw the said FIR.

From the perusal of the FIR, it is clear that there is no date, time, day, month even year mentioned in the FIR regarding commission of sexual

offence by the petitioner with the complainant. Although, FIR is totally silent even about the place where the petitioner had committed sexual offence

with her. Admittedly, both are major. As per the record, there was financial dispute between the parties. Apart from that there is no medical evidence

which shows that the petitioner had made physical relations with the prosecutrix. There is no, prima facie, evidence on record regarding sexual

offence except the allegation made in the FIR. As per the statement of learned counsel for the complainant, the FIR was lodged due to misconception

of fact. Accordingly, no case under Section 376 IPC is made out against the petitioner. There is no evidence on record regarding sexual offence.

From the perusal of the statement of bank record, prima facie, it is clear that there was some financial dispute between the parties due to which

complainant has lodged the instant impugned FIR. The petitioner has already lodged the FIR against the complainant in this regard.

So far as, remaining offences are concerned, it is amply clear that the FIR has been lodged just to quench the business rivalry. A careful perusal of

the averments made in the body of the FIR does not constitute any offence, as alleged against the petitioner. Thus, these offences viz., 328, 323 and

506 IPC are also not made out against the petitioner.

Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal & others, reported in 1992 Supp (1)

SCC 335, have considered, in detail, the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court summarized the legal position by laying the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their

inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: -

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Considering the facts of the present case, in light of the aforesaid judgments, I am of the view that the no prima facie case is made out against the

petitioner.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Entire proceedings, pending before the court below qua the petitioner, as mentioned in paragraph

no. 2 of this judgment, are hereby quashed.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Inform the court below.