On 12th October, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, reiterated that while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry on the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.

Fact of the case:

The petitioners had preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 218/2018 registered under Sections 498A/323/354D/506/509/34 IPC at Police Station New Friends Colony, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom, as well as stay of the proceedings pending before the Trial Court in SC No. 351/2019. The present FIR came to be registered on 21.08.2018 under Sections 323/354(D)/498A/509/506/34 IPC. On 26.08.2018 & 30.08.2018, the statements of the minor son and daughter were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein allegations relating to offence punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act were made.

Contention of the petitioner:

Mr. Tanmay Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended the following:

  1. It was contented that the entire case is false and fabricated to implicate the petitioners.
  2. It was further submitted that respondent No. 2 and her family members conspired against the petitioners and the same is evident from the transcripts of conversations between respondent No. 2 and her parents.
  3. It was urged that that 16 out of 31 allegations made in the FIR were concocted as they were dictated by family members of respondent No. 2 to her.
  4. It was also submitted that the minor children were tutored to level false allegations at the time of recording of their statements under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C.
  5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even at the aforesaid moment, no allegation under Section 10 of the POCSO Act was levelled.

Contention of the respondent:

Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, learned APP for the State, duly assisted by Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the prayers made in the petition on the following ground:

  1. It was stated that prior to receipt of FSL Report in FIR No. 34/2019, the petitioners had preferred similar petition being W.P.(CRL) 3298/2018, seeking quashing of the present FIR, which however was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 02.12.2019.
  2. It was contended that that insofar as the allegation with respect to the father-in-law sending inappropriate messages is concerned, his mobile phone has already been seized and sent to FSL for examination, the result of which is still awaited.
  3. It was submitted that the petitioners have forwarded only selective transcripts, as only 9 out of 18 conversations have been stated to be placed on record.
  4. It was also submitted that it is submitted that the Investigating Officer while filing the charge sheet has filed the same on his own opinion after reading the transcripts and hearing the recordings.

 

Observation and Judgment of the court:

The following observation has been made by the hon’ble court:

  1. The import of submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that it is unbelievable that petitioner No. 3, who is the father of the child victims, would indulge himself in offences under the POCSO Act overlooks the fact that on 19.08.2018, the police had reached the spot and while they were in the process of taking the complainant to hospital as she had slit her wrist.
  2. A careful reading of the entire material placed on the record, this Court is of the opinion that the case does not fall in the parameters laid down in paras 5 and 7 of Bhajan Lal.

Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in light of the position of law the court found no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. Thus, the petition was dismissed.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com 

Picture Source :

 
Anusree