Delhi High Court
Kuldeep Kumar vs State Of Delhi & Anr on 23 September, 2015
#18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd September, 2015
+ W.P.(CRL) 2053/2014 and Crl. MA Nos. 14102-14103/2015
KULDEEP KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Salim A. Inamdar, Advocate
versus
STATE OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC (Crl.)
SI Prateek Saxena, P.S. Anand Vihar
Mr. R.K. Yadav, Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying as
follows:-
"a. Direct that FIR No. 576 of 2014 PS Anand Vihar dated
13.09.2014 u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and
all proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed;
b. Formulate guidelines in respect of arrest, detention and
remand to custody in cases of offences under the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989;
c. Direct that no coercive action be taken qua the petitioner
during the pendency of the present petition; and
d. Pass such further orders and directions as may be
deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of
the case."
2. Ms. Kamna Vohra, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal)
appearing on behalf of the official respondent states that an order on charge
dated 3rd September, 2015 has already been passed. Learned ASC (Crl.)
further states that the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy against the
said order on charge dated 3rd September, 2015.
3. Mr. Salim A. Inamdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner states that the subject charge-sheet was vitiated by mala fides
inasmuch as the complainant belongs to a rival trade union in the same
Corporation. Mr. Inamdar would then urge that the complainant has
instituted proceedings under the said Act against numerous individuals
working in the same organization. Mr. Inamdar would also urge that the
documents annexed to the present petition clearly demonstrate that the
charges are manifestly motivated and false. Mr. Inamdar would lastly urge
that the subject FIR was registered belatedly a year after the alleged
commission of the offence under the said Act.
4. In the present case, it is observed that the order on charge in the
subject FIR has already been rendered. The present petition was instituted
praying for quashing of the subject FIR. The subject FIR has now
culminated into an order on charge against the petitioner.
5. It is an admitted position that the present petition does not challenge or
assail the order on charge.
6. Insofar as the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner are
concerned, it would be relevant to consider the judicial precedents on the
issue.
7. In the decision of Som Mittal vs. Government of Karnataka reported
as (2008) 3 SCC 574, a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that quashing of an FIR ought to be done only in the rarest of rare
cases, sparingly and with circumspection. The Court further observed that
while rendering judgments, the Court should only deal with the subject
matter of the case and issues involved therein and desist from issuing
directions affecting executive or legislative policy or general directions
unconnected with the subject matter of the case.
8. In the unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Revision Petition
No. 281/2012 titled Veena Ajmani vs. State and Ors., decided on 20th April,
2015, this Court, following the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Vijayan
vs. State of Kerala and Another, reported as (2010) 2 SCC 398, held that the
consideration of the court at the stage of framing of charges is for the limited
purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. Whether the material in the hands of the
prosecution is sufficient or not are matters of trial. Moreover, the issue
whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal is also immaterial.
9. It is one thing to allege mala fides and it is entirely another to establish
them based on cogent material.
10. In the present case, the allegations made in the complaint do clearly
constitute a cognizable offence justifying the registration of the subject FIR.
11. The extra-ordinary inherent powers of this Court under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on
the Court to act according to its whims and caprice. The Court will not be
justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint.
12. In the present case, it is observed that the allegations of mala fides
based on political rivalry and propensity of the complainant to institute
complaints against other individuals under the said Act are only bald
allegations and recriminations.
13. In view of the foregoing, I do not see any force in the contentions
made on behalf of the petitioner that on the basis of the material in the
present petition, the complaint should be thrown overboard only on the mere
unsubstantiated and unsupported plea of mala fides.
14. The contention of the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
that the charge-sheet in the subject FIR contains the CCTV footage recording
the commission of the offence in the subject FIR and that viewing the same
would result in an inescapable conclusion that the present case is motivated
and is untenable at this stage since that is well within the exclusive domain
of the trial Court.
15. The evidence and material to be placed before the trial Court on behalf
of the prosecution and the defence, if any, cannot be pre-judged at this stage.
16. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed.
The pending applications also stand disposed of.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SEPTEMBER 23, 2015
sd
