Uttarakhand High Court
Arun Kashyap vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 27 December, 2023
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No.1697 of 2023
Arun Kashyap ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Dushyant Mainali and Mr. Nikhil Bhatt, Advocates for
the petitioner.
Mr. K.S. Bora, D.A.G. with Mr. J.P. Kandpal, Brief Holder
for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.0839 of
2023, dated 19.12.2023, under 384 and 500 IPC, Police
Station Nagar Kotwali, District Haridwar, with related reliefs.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, the respondent no.3 ("the
informant") is the Incharge Executive Engineer posted at
Haridwar. The petitioner has been approaching the informant
and demanding money from him, but the informant did not
ever entertain him. On 16.12.2023, the FIR states that a
person approached the informant and advised him that he
should pay heed to the demands that were made by the
petitioner or else, the informant would have to pay a very
heavy cost. Thereafter, on 18.12.2023, a defamatory,
insulting and false story was published by the petitioner
against the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the entire FIR is false; if on 16.12.2023, some unknown
person had approached the informant, the FIR would have
been lodged immediately; it is unbelievable that some
unknown person would approach the informant advising him
to pay money to the petitioner; the petitioner never visited the
office of the informant; police is after the petitioner; police in
large number have visited the petitioner's house claiming that
the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation.
5. 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.
6. In a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial.
This is a jurisdiction, which is much wide, but, quite guided
by the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in a number of cases. In the case of of State of
Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court illustratively gave a
list of circumstances under which such interference may be
warranted. In Para 102, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
as follows:
"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. What is essentially being argued on behalf of the
petitioner is that the story, as narrated in the FIR, is not
believable. When these lines were dictated, learned counsel
for the petitioner would also submit that the FIR is based on
mala fide.
8. An FIR may not, at the threshold, be quashed
merely on the assumption that it may not be believable. The
matter needs to be investigated if the FIR discloses
commission of offence. Of course, mala fide is one such
ground, which may warrant interference in such matters, but,
then, there should be material to exhibit at the first instance
for the Court to make any indulgence on the basis of mala
fide, which is essentially lacking in the instant case.
9. Whether the petitioner has ever approached the
informant or not in his office? Whether the petitioner has ever
demanded money from the petitioner or not, or/and whether
on 16.12.2023, some person had approached and advised the
informant to pay heed to the demands made by the petitioner
or not? These are the matters, which would fall for scrutiny
during investigation or trial, as the case may be.
10. Insofar as the role of police in approaching the
petitioner is concerned, it may not be questioned at this
moment. There is an FIR lodged against the petitioner, which
the Investigating Officer is under obligation to investigate.
That may not be any reason to make any interference.
11. The FIR, in the instant case, definitely discloses
commission of offences. 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.
12. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
27.12.2023
Ravi Bisht
