[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shirin Husaini Urf Shabana vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7033
1 MCRC-39935-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 16th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39935 of 2024
SHIRIN HUSAINI URF SHABANA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ibrahim Kannodwala - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunit Kapoor - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C(528 of BNSS, 2023) has been
filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR pertaining to Crime No.
680/2021 registered by P.S. Badnagar Distt - Ujjain for offences punishable
under Sections 384 and 419 of IPC with all consequential proceedings
thereto.
2. The exposition of the facts, giving rise to the present petition, is as
under
A. Ismail Patel reported to P.S. Badnagar on 15.09.2021 that he was
married to Farzana. Farzana went to her parental home due to
matrimonial discord and lodged a report at Women Police Station in
Ujjian. When he went to the police station at Ujjain, Shirin Hussain
alias Shabana (petitioner) asked for money for settlement. She
threatened him of incarceration stating her acquaintance with police and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7033
2 MCRC-39935-2024
Court and demanded money. On 27.08.2021, at 11:30 in the morning,
he had paid Rs. 31,000/- to Shirin Hussain at Jai Stambh, Badnagar. 20
days thereafter, Shirin Hussain again called her to Ujjain and threatened
that she is working with Human Rights Commission, If he does not pay
her further money, he will be incarcerated. He had paid Rs. 49,000/- in
the account no. 63011272306 by Shirin Hussain. Thus, Shirin Hussain
had extorted Rs. 80,000/- from him by putting him in fear for
settlement with his wife. On such allegations, P.S. Badnagar registered
FIR at Crime No. 680/2021 for offence punishable u/S 384 and 419 of
IPC. The final report was submitted on completion of investigation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the petition, submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated in
the alleged offence. The petitioner was working as conciliator for amicable
settlement in matrimonial dispute between the parties. She was paid
consultation fees of Rs. 5000/-. The false allegations of extortion are leveled
against the applicant to avoid her consultation fees. No offence, as alleged is
committed by the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged
offence under sections 384 and 419 of IPC are not made out against the
applicant as there was no extortion or threat. The impugned FIR deserves to
be quashed. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment in the
cases of Mahmood Ali Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 INSC
684, Mohammad Wajid and another Vs. State of U.P reported in 2023 INSC
683, as also Ramji Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1987 Cri.LJ. 137 to
butteress his contentions.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7033
3 MCRC-39935-2024
4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the petition on the
ground of gravity of alleged offence and submits that content of the FIR
clearly makes out alleged offence. The petition is meritless
5. Heard, learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
6. The Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, reported
i n AIR 1992 SC 604 after an elaborate consideration of the matter and after
referring to its various earlier decisions, has observed in para 108 as under:-
''108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the
Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted
and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds
of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7033
4 MCRC-39935-2024
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge." (emphasis added)
7. In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Vs State of Maharashtra reported in
2021 SCC Online SC 315 , a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court reiterated
the principles laid down in the case of Bhajanlal (supra) and held that while the
Courts ought to be cautious in exercising powers under Section 482, they do have
the power to quash the proceedings. The test is whether or not, the allegations in
the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Court should not
enter into merits of the allegations or trench upon the lawful power of
Investigating agency to investigate into the allegations involving commission of a
cognizable offence.
8. In the case of Mohammad Wajid & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Ors reported in
2023 INSC 683 , it is held as under:
32. The alleged incident is said to have occurred sometime in the year 2021. There
is no reference to any date or time of the incident in the FIR. The allegations are too
vague and general. Had it been the case of prompt registration of the FIR, probably
the police might have been able to recover Rs. 2 Lakh from the possession of the
accused persons alleged to have been forcibly taken away from the pocket of the
first informant. The FIR also talks about a document on which the first informant
and his brother were forced to put their signatures. We wonder, whether the
investigating agency was in a position to collect or recover any such document from
the accused persons containing their signatures in the course of the investigation,
more particularly when the State says that the investigation is over and the charge
sheet is also ready. In the absence of all this material, how is the State going to
prove its case against the accused persons. The FIR in a criminal case is an
extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the
oral evidence adduced at the trial. The object of insisting upon lodging of the FIR to
the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7033
5 MCRC-39935-2024
regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the
actual culprits and the part played by them as well as names of the eye
witnessespresent at the scene of occurrence.
33. In the aforesaid context, we may clarify that delay in the registration of the FIR,
by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing of the FIR. However, delay with other
attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case rendering the entire
case put up by the prosecution inherently improbable, may at times become a good
ground to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings. If the FIR, like the one in
the case on hand, is lodged after a period of more than one year without disclosing
the date and time of the alleged incident and further without any plausible and
convincing explanation for such delay, then how is the accused expected to defend
himself in the trial. It is altogether different to say that in a given case, in the course
of investigation the investigating agency may be able to ascertain the date and time
of the incident, etc. The recovery of few incriminating articles may also at times
lend credence to the allegations levelled in the FIR. However, in the absence of all
such materials merely on the basis of vague and general allegations levelled in the
FIR, the accused cannot be put to trial.
9. In the case of Mahmood Ali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.[2023 INSC
684], it is held that:
12. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused
comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed
essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious
or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed againstthe
accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether
the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between
the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC
or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case
but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been
registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7033
6 MCRC-39935-2024
wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.
13. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy , (2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-
Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can
assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of
materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only
such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be
considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:-
"5. ...Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any
attempt is made toabuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court
has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the
court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent
promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to
quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to
abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would
otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the
complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is
sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess
what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even
if the allegations are accepted in toto.
6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court
summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be
exercised to quash the proceedings :
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution
or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at
its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence
alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal
evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to
prove the charge.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction
between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is
clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal
evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not
ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or
not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained.
That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an
instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and
judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and
circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an
instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any
person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7033
7 MCRC-39935-2024
an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death....."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Section 44 of IPC defines 'injury' as any harm illegally caused to a person's
body, mind, reputation, or property. It covers both physical and non-physical
damage, ensuring a broad scope for defining legal liability for criminal acts.
11. Section 383 of IPC defines 'extortion' as under:
Extortion - Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of injury to that person or
to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so puts in fear to deliver to
any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed whicgh
may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion".
12. Thus, the essential ingredient to constitute an offence of extortion are:
i. intentional putting a person in fear of injury to himself or another.
ii. Dishonestly inducing a person so put in fear to deliver to any person
any property or valauble security.
13. The material on record is examined in light of aforestated prepositions
of law. This Court while considering quashing of FIR cannot indulge into
threadbare analysis of the material on record or evaluation of the material
submitted before the trial Court. The FIR and the material submitted
alongwith the final report prima facie show complicity of the petitioner.
14. As per the contents of FIR, Shirin Hussain put the complainant Ismail
in fear of injury and dishonestly induced him to deliver Rs.80,000/- towards
amicable settlement of matrimonial discord with his wife.
15. Thus, the necessary ingredients to constitute offence of extortion as defined
u/Sec. 383 of IPC are prima-facie made out from the contents of the FIR.
16. Whether, the petitioner/accused Shirin Hussain impersonated as
official/President of Human Right Commission or not, would be a question of fact
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7033
8 MCRC-39935-2024
to be determined after evidence in the trial. Further, whether the complainant was
in fact alarmed by threat of the accused would also be a question of fact, which
may be determined after evidence in the trial. The delay in registration of FIR is
not so excessive, as to make it improbable. The contents of FIR show that the
petitioner created an environment that she has close contacts with police, to deter
immediate lodging of FIR by the complainant.
17. In view of the above discussion, the impugned FIR cannot be said to be
baseless, absurd, inherently improbable, malafide or maliciously intended to
wreck vengeance with the petitioner. Rather, the alleged offence is prima-facie
made out from the contents of FIR and the material collected during investigation.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for
quashing of FIR.
18. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sh
