Delhi High Court
R.K.Kwatra & Ors vs State & Anr on 20 March, 2014
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 13.03.2014.
Judgment delivered on: 20.03.2014.
+ CRL.M.C. 3951/2013 & Crl. M.A. No.14129/2013
R.K. KWATRA & ORS
..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR
..... Respondents
Through Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP
Mr. R.S. Mahla and Mr. Jitender
Kumar Panchal, Advs for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1 The petitioners seek quashing of present FIR No.224/2013
registered under Sections 323/506/341/354 of the IPC against the three
petitioners namely R.K. Kwatra, his wife Jagmohini Kwatra and his
daughter Shalini Kwatra; submission is that this FIR which was
registered pursuant to a complaint made under Section 156(3) of the
Cr.PC was registered after a delay of three years and is in fact only a
counter-blast of FIR No.296/2010 which had been registered on the
complaint of Shalini against B.S. Rachhora and his sons.
2 Record shows that on 15.08.2010 a quarrel had taken place
between the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the 'Kwatra group')
and the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rachhora Group');
the dispute was over the parking of a car; parties are admittedly
neighbors. Allegation is that the driver of Shalini had asked B.S.
Rachhora to move his car in front of their house; his son Shaksham went
to move the car and thereafter the family members of both the
petitioners and the complainant party collected there and a hot exchange
of filthy abuses took place between them; submission of both the groups
is that both the parties had received injuries.
3 Record shows that FIR No.296/2010 was registered on
04.10.2010 against B.S. Rachhora and his sons. This was on the
complaint made by Shalini. Record further shows that after the framing
of charges, the evidence of Shalini was led before the trial Court; this
was on 08.02.2013.
4 The allegations in the present petition are that the present FIR i.e.
FIR No.224/2013 has been registered three years after the date of the
incident; incident is admittedly dated 15.08.2010. Further submission is
that it was only after the deposition of PW-Shalini on 08.02.2013 in the
counter FIR i.e. FIR No.296/2010 that this complaint has been got
revived and the complainant of this case i.e. B.S. Rachhora who had
been in slumber for the last almost three years has now suddenly woken
up. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a
judgment of the Apex Court in Crl. Appeal No.441/2013 decided on
13.03.2013 titled Raj Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Anr. to support his submission that where is delay in reporting the
incident and the lodging of the FIR the allegations complained of even
otherwise being inherently improbable, there was no reason why ratio of
the judgment of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others reported
in AIR 1992 SC 604 should not be followed and the FIR be not quashed.
5 These submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners have
been countered by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 who submits
that the statement of the victim in the present FIR i.e. Pushpa who is the
wife of B.S. Rachhora has been recorded under Section 164 of the
Cr.PC just two days ago; investigation is still at its nascent stage and as
such the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners can
only be examined during the course of trial and merely because the FIR
has been registered after a gap would be no ground to quash present
proceedings. For this proposition, reliance has been placed upon AIR
1996 SC 309 Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another Vs. Kanwar Pal
Singh and another as also another judgment of the Apex Court reported
as AIR 1991 SC 1308 State of Bihar Vs. Raj Narain Singh; submission
is that the Court should not prejudge a question without affording
reasonable opportunity to the prosecution to substantiate its allegations.
6 Record of the instant case shows that incident had occurred on
15.08.2010. The issue was trivial. The dispute had arisen over the
parking of a vehicle in front of the house of petitioner No. 3 i.e. Shalini.
The driver of Shalini had asked B.S. Rachhora and his son to remove
their car. The incident of quarrel, counter quarrel and injuries alleged by
both the parties had emanated pursuant to this incident. As noted supra,
FIR No.296/2010 had been registered on 04.10.2010 on the complaint of
Shalini. This was against B.S. Rachhora, his wife and two sons. Shalini
has been examined as a witness in the trial Court on 08.02.2013. This
Court has been informed that trial in that case is under progress and the
matter is at the stage of the evidence of the prosecution.
7 The present FIR i.e. FIR No.224/2013 has been registered on
29.07.2013 i.e. almost three years after the date of the incident which is
dated 15.08.2010. On 19.08.2010 a complaint had been lodged by B.S.
Rachhora in the concerned police station. Learned counsel for
respondent No. 2 has drawn attention of this Court to a subsequent
complaint dated 21.08.2010 which Pushpa (wife of B.S. Rachhora) had
filed before the Delhi Women Commission, Vikas Bhawan, Indraprastha
Estate, New Delhi in which she has stated that on 15.08.2010, a quarrel
had taken place between R.K. Kwatra and her children on the issue of
parking; she sustained injuries; when her husband intervened, the whole
matter got further embroiled; police was called; legal action was
requested. Admittedly after 21.08.2010, there is nothing on record to
show that these complaints i.e. complaint dated 19.08.2010 and the
complaint dated 21.08.2010 were pursued. This position stands admitted
by learned counsel for respondent No. 2. On 20.02.2013, a complaint
was made to the DCP alleging non-action of the police complaint which
had been filed before the local police on 19.08.2010. This date of
20.02.2013 is relevant; it is admittedly after the deposition of Shalini in
FIR No.296/2010 which deposition had been recorded before the
concerned Court on 08.02.2013. The status report filed through the
Inspector of the concerned police station i.e. PS Paschim Vihar both
before the Court of Magistrate and before this Court have also been
brought to the notice of this Court. The first status report filed before the
Court of learned MM is dated 28.06.2013. In this status report it has
been stated that during the course of inquiry, it has been found that the
complainant's wife (Pushpa) was not present at the time of incident i.e.
on 15.08.2010; this report further states that the complaint has been filed
by the complainant (B.S. Rachhora) as a mere counterblast to the FIR
No.296/2010 which has been registered under Sections 323/354/506/509
of the IPC at PS Paschim Vihar which case is under trial; it further
records that this complaint has been filed by the complainant in order to
save his skin from the trial of that case. The second status report which
has been filed before the High Court is dated 09.10.2013. This has also
been forwarded by the concerned SHO of PS Paschim Vihar. In this
report also, it is stated that statements of certain neighbours were
recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.PC namely Sachin Verma, an eye
witness neighbor as also of HC Paramajeet Singh, In-charge PCR van
who had reached the spot and as per their statements, the allegations
made by B.S. Rachhora are wrong as the wife of B.S. Rachhora was not
present at the time of the incident; this report further states that the
investigation carried out so far does not substantiate the allegations in
the present FIR i.e. FIR No.224/2013.
8 Learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn attention of
this Court to a communication dated 28.09.2010 sent by B.S. Rachhora
to the Members of the Delhi Women Commission qua the present
incident. This letter nowhere states that Pushpa's blouse/shirt had been
torn by R.K. Kwatra. In fact, this reply states that B.S. Rachhora while
trying to save his wife from Kwatra, his daughter Shalini intervened and
slapped him. His son also reached the spot. It does not recite the
averments now made in the present FIR (FIR No.224/2013) that the
shirt/blouse of the complainant Pushpa had been torn. Attention has also
been drawn to the complaint dated 02.01.2011 made by B.S. Rachhora
to the Directorate (Education) against Shalini Kwatra wherein B.S.
Rachhora has reiterated that Shalini is a chronic litigant and is fighting
Court cases; inquiry against her conduct and activities should be carried
out; submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners being that after
this communication to the Directorate (Education), Shalini (petitioner
No.3) who was working as an Assistant Teacher in the Senior Secondary
School, B-3, Paschim Vihar has since been transferred to the Civil Lines
and this was at the behest of B.S. Rachhora who is fighting tooth and
nail with the petitioners group for malicious and ulterior reasons;
submission being reiterated by the learned counsel that this FIR has
been got registered only because of the influence that B.S. Rachhora has
in the neighbourhood.
9 Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner has force.
Record clearly deciphers that after the incident of 15.08.2010, although
a complaint had been made to be local police by B.S. Rachhora on
19.08.2010 which was followed by another complaint dated 21.08.2010
addressed by Pushpa before Delhi Commission for Women but
thereafter the matter went to rest and B.S. Rachhora and his family did
not wake up from their slumber for almost more than 2- ½ years i.e. till
20.02.2013 when they made a complaint to the DCP asking him as to
why no action has been taken on their complaint dated 19.08.2010. Even
on a specific query put to the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 as to
why no action had been taken in this long intervening period, he has no
answer. Admittedly in this intervening period, the cross FIR i.e. FIR
No.296/2010 had progressed and in the course of trial on 08.02.2013 i.e.
just 12 days before 20.02.2013, the statement of Shalini indicating B.S.
Rachhora and his family on oath had been recorded. As noted supra, the
present FIR had been registered finally on 29.07.2013 which was
pursuant to an order passed by the Magistrate on an application under
Section 156 (3) of the Cr.PC.
10 Not only has there been an inordinate delay (i.e. more than 2- ½
years from the date of the incident) by respondent No. 2 in taking up his
cause and of an incident which had allegedly occurred on 15.08.2010,
this also appears to be a clear case of a counterblast of B.S. Rachhora
who agitated by the evidence of Shalini recorded on 08.02.2013 (in the
counter FIR) woke up from his sleep and thought of pursuing an
otherwise dead matter. The fact that it was a dead matter is evident from
the fact that there is no explanation by him or his counsel as to why he
did not take any action in this long intervening gap of 2- ½ years. It
could be for no other reason but to counterattack the petitioner group i.e.
Kwatra group. This view of this Court is fortified by the letter which had
been written by B.S. Rachhora to the Directorate of Education on
02.01.2011 against the conduct of Shalini. There was no occasion
whatsoever for him to do so; he chose to do so; this could be only for a
malicious and vengeful grievance that he was still nursing against the
Kwatra family. The two status reports filed by the SHOs of PS Paschim
Vihar at two different points of time i.e. the first report dated 28.06.2013
and the second report which is dated 09.10.2013 also clearly state that
the investigation which included the recording of statement of eye-
witness Sachin Verma as also of HC Paramajeet Singh, In-charge PCR
van who had reached the spot immediately and Sachin Verma have both
stated that Pushpa (wife of B.S. Rachhora) was not present at the time of
the incident. The whole case of B.S. Rachhora is based on the injuries
received by his wife Pushpa; the complaint stating that his wife had been
molested by R.K. Kwatra and her blouse/shirt had been torn by him.
There is also no answer by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 as
to why this version that Pushpa was molested by Kwatra also did not
find mention in the reply dated 28.09.2010 which he had addressed to
the Delhi Commission for Women.
11 These criminal proceedings appear to be maliciously instituted by
B.S. Rachhora. There is no doubt that quashing of an FIR under the
inherent powers of the Court should be limited to extreme exceptions
but the Apex Court in the case of Ch. Bhajan Lal (Supra) has delineated
these powers and where it appears to the Court, on the facts of a given
case, that the prosecution of the complaint is manifestly malafide and
evidently capricious and attached with ulterior motives, the Court to
secure the ends of justice must proceed to quash the FIR. Present FIR
falls in this category. In this background, FIR No.224/2013 registered
under Sections 323/506/341/354 of the IPC at PS Paschim Vihar and all
proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
12 Petition disposed off.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
MARCH 20, 2014
A
