High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of FIR registered at PS Jahangir Puri under Sections 354A/506 of the IPC.
Brief Facts:
In December 2016, the Petitioner, who is an Assistant Professor at the University of Delhi, had gone to his hometown with his family, and during this time, the cemented water tank that had been constructed for his flat on the roof top, was demolished by one Mrs. Meena Kumar/Respondent No.2. The Respondent No. 2 subsequently constructed a room and toilet, and in the process, broke the pipe that would be used to supply water from the water tank to the Petitioner’s flat. When the Petitioner returned, he was shocked to see that there was no water and when he objected to the illegality of the constructions, Respondent No.2 and her family assured the Petitioner that they would reconstruct it. However, they failed to do so and the Petitioner installed a plastic water tank with his own money. The Petitioner’s wife suffers from multiple ailments and that the illegal construction is posing a serious threat to her life as it is blocking ventilation. The Petitioner’s wife filed a Civil Suit vide Suit seeking demolition of the illegal construction with Respondent No.2 being made party to that suit as Respondent No.8 therein. The Petitioner was attacked by one Mohan Singh who allegedly conspired with Respondent No.2 who had apparently assured him that no action would be taken by the police against him on account of her daughter-in-law working with Delhi Police. The Petitioner thereafter filed a complaint and the police register a non-cognizable report under Sections 323/506 IPC. However, no FIR was registered.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the instant FIR is an abuse of the process of law and was only filed after the Petitioner’s wife had filed the civil suit and then filed a written complaint against Respondent No.2’s son. He has argued that the ambiguous general allegations against the Petitioner have been made without mentioning the date and time of the offence and, therefore, are indicative of how the same are manufactured and concocted. He has submitted that no evidence or proof has been forwarded by Respondent No.2 to substantiate her allegations and, therefore, it can be presumed that the same is false, frivolous, malicious and vexatious in nature.
The learned Counsel has submitted that this Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the instant FIR and has placed on record multiple judgements to buttress this submission. He has further informed this Court that the Petitioner is a man of high stature who has been teaching as a professor at Delhi University, and that the instant FIR taints his reputation and thereby, closes all the doors to future prospects for the Petitioner.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Petitioner and his wife are habitual complainants and that both of them have filed several complaints regarding the construction that has taken place in their neighborhood. He has argued that the son of Respondent No.2, Jatin, does not live in that neighborhood and only visits his parents occasionally. He further submitted that the SC had laid down broad principles in relation to Section 482 Cr.P.C. and had stated that the inherent powers of this Court could not be invoked to quash criminal proceedings involving serious and heinous crimes which were not private in nature and had a serious impact upon society. Further, it has been stated that sexual harassment cases cannot be quashed under Section 226/227 of the Constitution of India and same needs to be decided through the process of trial.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court observed that the Supreme Court has time and again laid down the parameters that must be adhered to by a High Court while exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR. It has been consistently observed by the Apex Court that the inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution, and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself.
Court stated that quashing of criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same.
Court also stated that it is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.
While this Court is cognizant of the fact that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details, however, in the instant case, a bare reading of the impugned FIR prima facie indicates that the FIR arises out of bald allegations and contradictory statements. Furthermore, a reading of the Status Report also does not reveal anything about the offences being referred to in the impugned FIR. The Status Report states that the Petitioner and his wife were habitual complainants and have filed multiple complaints against the construction that would take place in the neighbourhood, and therefore, it is evident that the instant FIR was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Petitioner, and with a view to spite him and his wife due to a private and personal grudge.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “This Court expresses its anguish at how provisions such as Sections 354A/506 IPC are falsely invoked at the drop of a hat to register one’s displeasure at the conduct of another individual. This merely trivialises the offence of sexual harassment and casts a doubt on the veracity of the allegations filed by every other victim who has in reality faced sexual harassment, thereby setting back the cause of women empowerment. This Court, therefore, deems it fit to exercise its inherent power to quash FIR registered at PS Jahangir Puri under Sections 354A/506 IPC to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Dr. Karunakar Patra v. State
Case Details: W.P.(CRL) 502/2021 & CRL.M.A. 3511/2021
Picture Source :
