Suman Lata & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

R.C. Khulbe, J

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the FIR No.0333 of 2021 lodged under Sections 389 and

120-B of IPC, registered at P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun.

There is no sufficient ground to compound the case; accordingly, the compounding application (IA No.1 of 2021) is dismissed.

From the perusal of the record, the respondent No.3 lodged the FIR on 24.07.2021 against the present petitioners and co-accused-Sandeep

Verman, which was registered with P. S. Vikas Nagar on the very same day as FIR No.0333 of 2021; it is the only allegation that on the pretext of

video clipping, the respondent no.3, herein, had been extorted by the writ-petitioners, and he made several transactions in the account of the writ-

petitioners.

After lodging the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner No.2-Radha lodged another FIR with the same police station against the respondent no.3, which was

registered as FIR No.0334 of 2021 under Section 376 IPC along with other offences; thereafter, respondent no.3 filed WPCRL No.1314 of 2021 for

quashing the FIR No.0334 of 2021. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 09.08.2021, it came to the notice of this Court that the respondent-

Bhagirath Chaudhary did not commit any offence falling u/s 376, 328, 323 and 506 IPC. Since the informant/respondent and the petitioners were major

and it was simply a money transaction between the parties, accordingly, on the basis of it, the said writ-petition was disposed of and the FIR No.0334

of 2021 has been quashed by this Court on 09.08.2021.

Admittedly, the respondent â€"Bhagirath Chaudhary lodged the present FIR bearing No.0333 of 2021 against the writ-petitioners regarding the

same facts of allegations.

Learned counsel for the private respondent (informant) fairly submitted that a compromise has already taken between the parties outside the Court

and both the FIRs were lodged due to misconception of facts, though, it was simply a case of money transaction.

From the record, it is clear that there was no extortion committed by the writ-petitioners against the respondent no.3. Since the FIR No.0334 of

2021 has been quashed by this Court, accordingly, the present FIR No.0333 of 2021 is also liable to be quashed.

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 judgment, I am of the view that no ‘prima facie’ case is made out against

the petitioners.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the FIR No.0333 of 2021, u/s 389/120-B IPC registered at P.S. Vikas Nagar, District

Dehradun is hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.