Uttarakhand High Court
Mohammad Yunus vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No.1098 of 2023
Mohammad Yunus ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief
Holder for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.17 of
2023, under Sections 323, 376, 506 IPC and Section 5/6 of
the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
Police Station Ranikhet, District Almora, with related reliefs.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The FIR has been lodged by the step daughter of
the informant, the respondent no.3. According to it, after
separation of the mother of the victim from her father, the
mother of the victim married to the petitioner. The victim has
been staying with the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the
mother of the victim also left the company of the petitioner.
Thereafter, the petitioner established physical relations with
the victim twice. The victim revealed it to her step mother.
The FIR records that on 24.06.2023, the petitioner assaulted
the victim and tried to kill her, and threatened her to life.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that it is a false mala fide FIR; the petitioner had dispute with
his first wife with regard to their matrimonial discord. There
was a criminal case pending against him; had there been
some substance in the allegations, the victim could have
informed her real mother. Revealing the alleged incident to
the step mother by the victim, according to learned counsel
for the petitioner, establishes a nexus between the step
mother of the victim and the victim so as to settle the score
with the petitioner. Therefore, it is argued that the FIR is mala
fide.
5. It is also submitted that, in fact, the victim
herself, in a complaint, has stated that her mother would
doubt that victim had relationship with her real father
6. It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In case, the FIR discloses commission of
offence, generally, no interference is warranted unless there
are compelling circumstances to do so. The jurisdiction is
much wide, but, guided by the principles of law as laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana
and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335. In Para 102, the Hon'ble Supreme Court illustratively
gave the list of circumstances under which interference in
this jurisdiction may be made. It is as hereunder:-
"102. 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 channelised 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 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.
7. The FIR in the instant case reveals very serious
allegations. Allegations are of rape in a family by the step
father. In this case, there is no such material, which may
require this Court to make any interference. Whatever
arguments have been made, they would fall for scrutiny
during investigation or trial, as the case may be, while
examining the truthfulness and credibility of the FIR and the
version of the victim. Therefore, this Court is of the view that
there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the
petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission
itself.
8. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
04.08.2023
Ravi Bisht
