Delhi High Court
Sayed Anwar Ali & Ors. vs The State & Ors. on 9 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 09, 2015
+ (i) CRL.M.C. 4806/2013 & Crl.M.A. 17312/2013
NAEEMUDDIN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mohd. Nasir, Mr. Saleem and
Mohd. Tabrez, Advocates
versus
THE STATE & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
+ (ii) CRL.M.C. 4808/2013 & Crl.M.A. 17356/2013
SAYED ANWAR ALI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Juned Alam and Mohd.
Khurshid, Advocates
versus
THE STATE & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In the above captioned petitions, quashing of cross FIRs i.e. FIR
No.69/2013 under Sections 506/452/323/34 of IPC (in CRL.M.C.
4806/2013) and FIR No.94/2013 under Sections 427/323/324/452/341/
506/509/34 of IPC (in CRL.M.C. 4808/2013) both registered at P.S. Jama
CRL.M.C. 4806 & 4808 of 2013 Page 1
Masjid, Delhi on the ground of compromise and affidavits of the parties.
Since the above quashing is sought on the common grounds,
therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these
petitions were heard together and by this common judgment, they are
being disposed of.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State informs that the
investigation of these two cross FIR cases is in progress and while taking
into consideration the affidavits of the parties, a supplementary statement
of the complainant party of these two FIRs would be recorded and
thereafter, final report would be filed within a period of six weeks.
Apex Court in N. Soundaram v. P.K. Pounraj, (2014) 10 SCC 616,
has pertinently observed as under:-
"13. It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases
that the power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised
sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of
any court and to secure the ends of justice. The inherent
power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a
prima facie decision unless there are compelling
circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the
complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting
anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High
Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the
exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. An
investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the
allegations have some substance.
14. An overall perusal of the materials placed before us
makes out a prima facie case against the accused which
requires to be decided by conducting a proper trial. At this
stage the High Court cannot analyse and meticulously
CRL.M.C. 4806 & 4808 of 2013 Page 2
consider the evidence and anticipate whether it will end up in
conviction or acquittal. This is not the stage to decide whether
there is any truth in the allegations made but to form an
opinion whether on the basis of the allegation a cognizable
offence or offences alleged has been prima facie made out.
The guilt or otherwise of the accused can be proved only after
conducting a full-fledged trial. In the circumstances, in our
opinion, it is not proper for the High Court to interfere with
the proceedings and quash the final report submitted by the
police"
In view of the afore-noted legal position in N. Soundaram (supra),
this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at this stage.
Accordingly, both these petitions and the applications are disposed
of with direction to the Investigating Officers of the cross cases to
conclude the investigation expeditiously i.e. preferably within a period of
six weeks. Needless to say, the parties would be at liberty to file similar
petition, if need arises.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 09, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 4806 & 4808 of 2013 Page 3
