Uttarakhand High Court
Suman Lata & Another ..... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 10 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No.1435 of 2021
Suman Lata & another ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ....Respondents
Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. V.S. Rathore, learned AGA along with Ms. Sonika Khulbe,
learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Caveator.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking to quash the FIR
No.0333 of 2021 lodged under Sections 389 and 120-B of
IPC, registered at P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun.
2. There is no sufficient ground to compound the
case; accordingly, the compounding application (IA No.1
of 2021) is dismissed.
3. From the perusal of the record, the respondent
No.3 lodged the FIR on 24.07.2021 against the present
petitioners and co-accused-Sandeep Verman, which was
registered with P. S. Vikas Nagar on the very same day as
FIR No.0333 of 2021; it is the only allegation that on the
pretext of video clipping, the respondent no.3, herein, had
been extorted by the writ-petitioners, and he made
several transactions in the account of the writ-
petitioners.
4. After lodging the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner
No.2-Radha lodged another FIR with the same police
station against the respondent no.3, which was registered
as FIR No.0334 of 2021 under Section 376 IPC along with
other offences; thereafter, respondent no.3 filed WPCRL
No.1314 of 2021 for quashing the FIR No.0334 of 2021.
When the matter was taken up for hearing on
09.08.2021, it came to the notice of this Court that the
respondent-Bhagirath Chaudhary did not commit any
offence falling u/s 376, 328, 323 and 506 IPC. Since the
informant/respondent and the petitioners were major
and it was simply a money transaction between the
parties, accordingly, on the basis of it, the said writ-
petition was disposed of and the FIR No.0334 of 2021 has
been quashed by this Court on 09.08.2021.
5. Admittedly, the respondent -Bhagirath
Chaudhary lodged the present FIR bearing No.0333 of
2021 against the writ-petitioners regarding the same
facts of allegations.
6. Learned counsel for the private respondent
(informant) fairly submitted that a compromise has
already taken between the parties outside the Court and
both the FIRs were lodged due to misconception of facts,
though, it was simply a case of money transaction.
7. From the record, it is clear that there was no
extortion committed by the writ-petitioners against the
respondent no.3. Since the FIR No.0334 of 2021 has been
quashed by this Court, accordingly, the present FIR
No.0333 of 2021 is also liable to be quashed.
8. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal &
others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, have
considered, in detail, the provisions of Section 482
Cr.P.C., and the power of the High Court to quash
criminal proceedings or FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
summarized the legal position by laying the following
guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of
their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: -
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 FIR 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 FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
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.
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.
9. Considering the facts of the present case, in
light of the aforesaid judgment, I am of the view that no
'prima facie' case is made out against the petitioners.
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed
and the FIR No.0333 of 2021, u/s 389/120-B IPC
registered at P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun is
hereby quashed qua the petitioners.
11. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
10.08.2021
BS
