Mohammad Yunus vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.17 of 2023, under Sections 323, 376, 506 IPC and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Ranikhet, District Almora, with related reliefs.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The FIR has been lodged by the step daughter of the informant, the respondent no.3. According to it, after separation of the mother of the victim from her father, the mother of the victim married to the petitioner. The victim has been staying with the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the mother of the victim also left the company of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner established physical relations with the victim twice. The victim revealed it to her step mother. The FIR records that on 24.06.2023, the petitioner assaulted the victim and tried to kill her, and threatened her to life.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is a false mala fide FIR; the petitioner had dispute with his first wife with regard to their matrimonial discord. There was a criminal case pending against him; had there been some substance in the allegations, the victim could have informed her real mother. Revealing the alleged incident to the step mother by the victim, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, establishes a nexus between the step mother of the victim and the victim so as to settle the score with the petitioner. Therefore, it is argued that the FIR is mala fide.

It is also submitted that, in fact, the victim herself, in a complaint, has stated that her mother would doubt that victim had relationship with her real father

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. The jurisdiction is much wide, but, guided by the principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. In Para 102, the Hon’ble Supreme Court illustratively gave the list of circumstances under which interference in this jurisdiction may be made. It is as hereunder:-

“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.

The FIR in the instant case reveals very serious allegations. Allegations are of rape in a family by the step father. In this case, there is no such material, which may require this Court to make any interference. Whatever arguments have been made, they would fall for scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the case may be, while examining the truthfulness and credibility of the FIR and the version of the victim. 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.