The Delhi High Court has observed that FIR or Chargesheet can be quashed if the allegations levelled or the evidences collected, though remaining uncontroverted, do not disclose the commission of an offence.

The single-judge bench of Justice Asha Menon opined that High Court while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot embark on an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR and thus reliability of the statements of the respondent or the genuineness of her complaint cannot be subject matter of the present proceedings.

Brief Facts of the Case

The FIR, the quashing of which has been prayed, was lodged after one year of filing of complaint. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that the entire case was a product of mala fide, falsehood and absurdity and this was a case of sheer abuse of the criminal process.

He cited SC Judgement in State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors, 1990 Latest Caselaw 365 SC and submitted that the entire FIR and the charge-sheet was so absurd and inherently improbable that it was liable to be quashed.

The complaint is concerned around dispute between ex-huband and wife wherein the ex-wife has claimed a right to the ground floor of a certain property owned by the husband. It was the submission of the petitioner-husband that she could produce no document to reflect that she had been in possession of the ground floor for the last two years and it seems absurd to believe that 17 years after the divorce, the wife would have been given the keys of the ground floor by the ex-husband.

It was averred that petitioner has been unneccessarily dragged to the case as the inter se parties to the case were the two brothers living in the first floor. He also placed reliance on Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home, 2018 Latest Caselaw 838 SC

Learned ASG also submitted that the petition ought to be dismissed at the threshold as though the charge-sheet had been filed, cognizance was yet to be taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Moreover, all the arguments submitted by the learned counsel were relevant for determination of the charge that would have to be framed, he added.

He relied on K.Neelaveni Vs. State Rep.By Insp.Of Police & Ors., 2010 Latest Caselaw 208 SC to submit that since there was discretion vested with the Magistrate to accept or reject the conclusions drawn by the Investigating Officer, the petition was premature as it had been filed without waiting for an order to be passed by the Magistrate in terms of Section 190 of the Cr.P.C.

High Court's Observation

The Court at the outset noted that it is very clear that the decision to exercise or not to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would be predicated on the facts of each case but while considering the facts, the court cannot embark on an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR.

The Court opined that the entire thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is on the genuineness of the allegations made against the petitioners.

"there has been an emphasis on the fact that though the incident had occurred in Punjabi Bagh, it was an year later that the FIR was registered by the Crime Branch; that the possession of the respondent No.2 of the ground floor of property No.17/43, Punjabi Bagh (West), Delhi was unexplained on the basis of documents; that the relationship between the respondent No.2 and her husband was strained and it was not possible to believe that he would have permitted her to enter the premises by handing over the keys to her; that there were contradictions in the various complaints given to the Police; that the names of the petitioners and others were randomly taken and that there was mala fide in the registration of the complaint by the respondents and the entire case was absurd."

 In view of the above, the Court clarified that it cannot weigh the material in such a fashion to determine the question of truth in the complaint and citing Bhajan Lal case, noted that when the allegations made in the FIR, if taken at face value alongwith other materials accompanying the FIR, do not disclose an offence, that the court would be justified in quashing the FIR. 

"If the allegations made in the FIR or complaint or the evidence collected, though remaining uncontroverted, do not disclose the commission of an offence, then the FIR and charge-sheet could be quashed. Finally, if the allegations in the FIR or complaint were inherently improbable, then the FIR and charge-sheet could be quashed. None of these situations prevail in the present case."

Upon analysis, the Court noted that the facts of each case would determine the exercise of the discretion vested in the court to quash criminal proceedings in order to prevent abuse of process of court.

In the present case, the Court found that allegations taken at face value or to be treated as uncontroverted disclose the commission of various offences by the accused persons including the petitioners in cohort with each other and none of them appear to be absurd or inherently improbable.

The Court didn't find the case to be suitable to exercise power under Section- 482 CrPC and thus accordingly dismissed the petition.

Read Judgement Here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Sheetal Joon