Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 29.01.2025
+ CRL.M.C. 3404/2022 & CRL.M.A. 14286/2022
YOGESH SHEGAL AND ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the
State.
Ms. Nagma Khan and Ms.
Nasmeen, Advocates for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter „ Cr.P.C. ‟] on behalf of
the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No. 352/2020, registered at
Police Station KNK Marg, Delhi for the offences punishable under
Sections 376D/354/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter
„ IPC ‟] and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case, as disclosed from the Status Report,
are that on 14.10.2020, the complainant „R‟ had lodged a complaint
wherein she had stated that on 11.10.2020, at about 11:30 AM, while
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 3404/2022 Page 1 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:13.02.2025
18:44:08
she was on her way to her shop in the market, Yogesh Sehgal
(petitioner no. 1), along with his wife Priya (petitioner no. 2), had
started beating her. During this altercation, both of them had hit the
complainant hard on her private parts and had pressed her breasts.
Furthermore, both the accused persons had inserted their fingers into
her vagina. According to the complainant, the entire incident had
been witnessed by several people in the market, and it was recorded
in the CCTV cameras. The complainant had claimed that she had
sustained several injury marks on her face, breast, and thighs, and an
MLC had been prepared at BSA Hospital, vide MLC No. 2203/20.
The complainant had also stated that Yogesh Sehgal‟s wife i.e.
petitioner no. 2 herein had previously filed a rape case against the
complainant and her husband, Rajiv. On the basis of these
allegations, the present FIR was registered, and the investigation was
initiated.
3. During the investigation, it was discovered that on 12.10.2020,
a Kalandra under Sections 107/150 of Cr.PC had been prepared by
ASI Joginder against both parties (First party: Yogesh Sehgal &
Priya Sehgal; and Second party: Kamal Rohilla, Radhika & Rajbeer
Rohilla) due to a dispute over installing a water motor. On
14.10.2020, the accused Yogesh Sehgal was arrested in the present
case, whereas his wife Priya Sehgal was granted anticipatory bail by
this Court. During the course of investigation, the complainant had
provided a pendrive containing CCTV footage of the incident in
question, which had been taken into police possession through a
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 3404/2022 Page 2 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:13.02.2025
18:44:08
seizure memo. The CCTV footage had revealed that a quarrel had
occurred between the complainant and the accused persons. On
15.10.2020, the statement of complainant „R‟ was recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. After
completion of investigation, chargesheet in the present case was filed.
4. The Status Report also reveals that on a complaint filed by
petitioner no. 2 Priya Sehgal, an FIR No. 351/2020 for offences
punishable under Sections 376D/354B/323 of IPC had been
registered against Rajbeer, Kamal Rohilla, and „R‟. Additionally, on
Priya Sehgal‟s complaint, an FIR bearing no. 372/2019 under
Sections 323/354/354B/451/506/34 of IPC had earlier been registered
against Jaya Chatterji, Raju Kumar @ Rajiv, Radhika Chatterji,
Monika Chatterji, and Tapan. The chargesheet in the latter case had
also been filed before the concerned court and was at the stage of
prosecution evidence.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that
the petitioners herein have been falsely implicated in this case since
they had already lodged a complaint against the complainant herein.
It is contended that the allegations which have been levelled and the
story which has been put up by the prosecution and the complainant –
that the entire incident was captured by the CCTV footage – is not
substantiated by any CCTV footage. It is also argued that chargesheet
has already been filed in this case, and the I.O. has totally ignored the
fact that a perusal of the CCTV footage clearly reveals that no
incident as alleged by the complainant herein had taken place. It is
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 3404/2022 Page 3 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:13.02.2025
18:44:08
also stated that no public witness has been cited by the prosecution
even though it is alleged that the incident had taken place in the
market and there were several persons who had witnessed the
incident. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed.
6. The learned APP appearing for the State, on the other hand,
draws this Court‟s attention to the statement recorded under Section
164 of Cr.P.C. and states that the victim has substantiated her
allegations and has provided detailed information regarding the
individuals involved in the sexual assault. He also draws this Court's
attention to the MLC of the victim and states that the injuries found
on her person, particularly those that were visible on her face, breast,
and thighs, indicate that the incident in question indeed had indeed
taken place. The learned APP further asserts that the case is listed for
arguments on charge, and the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, including the issues related to the
adequacy of evidence and the handling of the case, can be raised and
argued before the learned Trial Court at the time of addressing
arguments on charge. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition
be dismissed.
7. This Court has heard arguments advanced on behalf of both
the parties and has perused the material available on record.
8. Since by way of this petition, the petitioners have sought
quashing of FIR, it shall be apposite to note that in case of State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 , the Hon‟ble Supreme
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 3404/2022 Page 4 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:13.02.2025
18:44:08
Court had observed that except in exceptional circumstances, where
non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Courts
must not interfere at the stage of the investigation of an offence.
Further, the principles which were laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex
Court, to be followed while adjudicating a petition seeking quashing
of criminal proceedings, are as under:
“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 extra-ordinary
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 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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 3404/2022 Page 5 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:13.02.2025
18:44:08
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. In Skoda AutoVolkswagen India Private Limited v. State of
Uttar Pradesh: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 958 , it was held as follows by
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court:
“40. It is needless to point out that ever since the decision
of the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir
Ahmad , the law is well settled that Courts would not
thwart any investigation. It is only in cases where no
cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in
the first information report that the court will not permit
an investigation to go on.
41. As cautioned by this Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal , the power of quashing should be exercised
very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the
rarest of rare cases. While examining a complaint, the
quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 3404/2022 Page 6 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:13.02.2025
18:44:08
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the
complaint.
42. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat this Court again
cautioned that criminal proceedings ought not to be
scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint
should rather be an exception and a rarity than an
ordinary rule. In S.M. Datta , this Court held that if a
perusal of the first information report leads to disclosure
of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from
usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two
organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of
activities and one ought not to tread over the other
sphere.”
10. The principles governing quashing of FIRs and criminal
proceedings were summed up by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra: (2021)
19 SCC 401 after analysing catena of judicial precedents. The
relevant observations of the Supreme Court are set out below:
“13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from
the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja
Nazir Ahmad, the following principles of law emerge:
13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into
cognizable offences;
13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences;
13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or
offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information
report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'.
(The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for
quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused
with the norm which has been formulated in the context
of the death penalty, as explained previously by this
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 3404/2022 Page 7 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:13.02.2025
18:44:08
Court);
13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of
which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry
as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage;
13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;
13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State
operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent
power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the
ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference
would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the
judicial process should not interfere at the stage of
investigation of offences;
13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do
not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims or caprice;
13.12. The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details
relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the
investigation by the police is in progress, the court should
not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police
must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would
be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy
facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of
law.During or after investigation, if the investigating
officer finds that there is no substance in the application
made by the complainant, the investigating officer may
file an appropriate report/summary before the learned
Magistrate which may be considered by the learned
Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
13.13. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 3404/2022 Page 8 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:13.02.2025
18:44:08
but conferment of wide power requires the court to be
cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the
court;
13.14. However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks
fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the
self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the
parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P.
Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction
to quash the FIR/complaint; and
13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether
or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission
of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on
merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable
offence or not and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations
in the FIR.”
11. After hearing arguments and going through the case file, this
Court is of the opinion that in the present case, the contentions which
have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners primarily
are that the basis on which the chargesheet has been filed – that is the
evidence collected by the investigating officer – would point out
towards innocence of the present petitioners, and therefore, the FIR
be quashed. However, in this Court‟s opinion, the principles which
guide the High Courts while deciding petitions seeking quashing of
an FIR have been enumerated in decisions of Neeharika
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) , as noted above. The material placed
on record, at this stage, reveals that the complainant in her complaint
and her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has levelled
specific allegations of commission of sexual assault against the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 3404/2022 Page 9 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:13.02.2025
18:44:08
petitioners herein. Whether the allegations are false, or whether the
CCTV footage reveals the incident in question in a manner as
claimed by the complainant, and whether the statements of the
witnesses are reliable or not, cannot be decided by this Court in
proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as the same are essentially
triable issues, to be decided on the anvil of examination and cross-
examination. Considering the same, the material on record does not
lead to a conclusion that the allegations of sexual assault levelled in
the present FIR are inherently absurd or improbable.
12. Thus, in view of foregoing discussion, the present petition
along with pending application is accordingly dismissed.
13. The petitioners however shall be at liberty to raise all the
contentions raised before this Court, at the stage of addressing
arguments on charge before the learned Trial Court.
14. It is however clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove shall
tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
15. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JANUARY 29, 2025/zp
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 3404/2022 Page 10 of 10
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:13.02.2025
18:44:08