Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2023 INSC 686
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2343 OF 2023
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 2988 of 2023)
HAJI IQBAL @ BALA …APPELLANT(S)
THROUGH S.P.O.A.
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
J.B. PARDIWALA, J. :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is at the instance of the original accused
No. 2 in the First Information Report (FIR) No. 195 of 2022
dated 25.08.2022 registered with the Mirzapur Police Station,
District Saharanpur, State of U.P. for the offences punishable
under Sections 376-D and 506 resply of the Indian Penal Code
(for short, “IPC”) and is directed against the order passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 17.10.2022 in
the Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 15172 of 2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Charanjeet Kaur
Date: 2023.08.08
15:45:17 IST
Reason:
filed by the appellant by which the High Court rejected the Writ
1
Petition and thereby declined to quash the FIR referred to
above for the enumerated offences therein.
3. The FIR lodged by the one “X” reads thus:-
“Copy of the Complaint - - To the Incharge Inspector Sir.
P.S. Mirzapur, District- Saharanpur. Sir, it is humbly
requested that my name is X wife of Y, Residence of :
Village Kot Mustarka, P.S. Chachrauli, District Yamuna
Nagar, Haryana. It is in the year 2011 one of my
relatives told to me that one plot of land situated at
Village Safipur vide land Khasra No. 145/1 area 0.461
Hectare belonged to Arnit Kumar Joshi son of Surendra
Joshi residence of Mani Majara Road, Chandigarh was
then decided by said owner for sale of the said land
plot. It is in view of the same, I executed sale deed for
purchase of present land on 25.11.2011. The present
land in the year 2012 forcefully captured by Javed son
of Iqbal @ Bala, Hazi Iqbal@ Bala son of Abdul Wahid
and Mahmud son of Abdul Wahid residence of Kaswa &
P.S. - Mirzapur, District- Saharanpur. I then requested
these people to vacate my land when these people
started to threaten me. I have made many more requests
to these people. It is however, these people did not
budge. It is in the Month of November, 2018 said Javed,
his brother Alishan and their Advocate Jishan sol! of
Jamil residence of Padli Grant, P.S. Mirjapur, District
Saharanpur called me for communication near to
Tubewell at Glocal University. It is then these people for
vacating my land, they compelled me to make physical
relation with them. It is then Javed sent Alishan to bring
some food items from the market. It is thereafter, the
then present Javed and his Advocate Jishan after
bringing me before the Tube well room; they separately
made forceful rape with me. They thereafter threatened
that if I communicate to any one, they will take my life. It
is sometimes later Alishan after taking goods from the
market came before there It is then Javed and Jishan
leave that place on the excuse that they are going toward
Badshahi Bag. It is thereafter, Alishan after finding me
alone; he also raped me after taking me inside the tube
well room. He threatened to kill me in case I open mouth.
2
It is thereafter I returned to my home. It is on next week,
I returned to see my field. It is then I met Afjal and his
advocate Jishan. They called me before the Tubewell for
making communication. It is on the excuse of vacating
the forceful possession of my land, Afjan son of Iqbal
and his Advocate Jishan again raped me forcefully. It is
still these people did not vacate my land. It is for many
times it is Javes and his brother Alishan, Afjal and
Jishan on the excuse of vacating my land, they
separately blackmailed and committed the crime of rape
with me. These people after threatening me, they told
that I should forget about the land. I want to state that
these people are very powerful people. It was earlier due
to threat to my life, I then unable to state anything at the
point of time. It is, therefore, you are requested to lodge
my report and take necessary legal action. It will be
humble justice for me.”
4. Thus, a plain reading of the aforesaid FIR reveals that the
victim “X” is a resident of Village Kot Mustarka, P.S. Chachrauli,
District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. She had purchased a land
bearing Khasra No. 145/1 admeasuring 0.461 hectares situated
at Village Safipur, Behat, Saharanpur from one Amit Kumar Joshi
on 25.11.2011. The victim has alleged that in the year 2012 the
appellant along with two other accused persons named in the FIR
forcibly took over the possession of the said land and when the
victim begged before them to vacate the land, they started
threatening her. In November 2018, the other co-accused namely
Javed, Alishan and their Advocate Jishan asked the victim to meet
them near a tube well at the Glocal University and when the
victim went to meet them, they all forced her to have physical
3
relations with them in lieu of vacating her land. It is alleged that
despite exploiting her sexually, they did not vacate her land. It is
further alleged that the co-accused Afjal, Jishan, Javed and
Alishan had also on several occasions blackmailed her and
committed rape on her.
5. Although the appellant herein is named in the FIR as
accused No. 2, yet no particular allegation has been levelled
against him. He went before the High Court with a prayer that the
FIR be quashed so far as he is concerned. The High Court by the
impugned order dated 17.10.2022 rejected the Criminal
Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 15172 of 2022 and thereby
declined to quash the FIR against the appellant.
6. The impugned order passed by the High Court reads thus:-
“Heard Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Senior
Counsel, assisted by Shri I.B. Yadav, learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned A.G.A for the State
respondents.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the
F.I.R. dated 25.08.2022 registered as Case Crime No.
0195 of 2022 under Sections 376-D, 506 IPC, Police
Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur.
Learned A.G.A., at the outset, submits that petitioner
has long criminal antecedent of 30 cases. This fact is not
being disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perusal of the impugned first information report prima
facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. Therefore,
in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court
4
in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan
Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati
& another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on
07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference
with the impugned first information report.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open
for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for
anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law.”
7. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is
here before this Court with the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
8. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant herein in his written submissions
has stated as under:-
“a) It is respectfully submitted that the alleged First
Information Report is absolutely false and frivolous, and
on a reading of the said FIR, the offence under Section
376-D and 506 IPC is clearly not made out against the
Petitioner herein inasmuch as apart from the omnibus
allegation that the Petitioner along with the co-accused
person had forcibly taken possession of the land of the
Complainant and that they use to threaten her, there is
neither any allegation that the Petitioner had committed
rape on the Complainant or that he even made any
sexual advances towards the Complainant or that he
had threatened the Complainant at any point of time in
any manner.
b) The allegations in the First Information Report are not
only vague but also highly improbable given that except
for the bald allegation that the incident occurred in
November 2018, there is no mention of the date and time
of incident in the FIR. The said incident allegedly
5
occurred in November 2018 while the FIR has been
lodged after an inordinate delay of 4 years, that is, on
25.08.2022. On a reading of the FIR it is evident that the
dispute is with respect to the land situated at Khasra No.
145/1, Village Shafipur, Behat, District Saharanpur and
the Petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the said land
by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 10.10.2012 for
a sale consideration of Rs. 12 lakh and there was
therefore no question of the Petitioner taking forceful
possession of his own land from the Complainant
particularly when there is no evidence to show that she
in fact is the owner of the said land. If at all the
Complainant had any grievance against the Petitioner
she could have approached the Court instead of lodging
a false FIR against the Petitioner and that too after an
inordinate delay of 4 years for which there is no
explanation.
c) It is submitted that although the Respondents have
alleged that the Petitioner is a mining mafia in western
Uttar Pradesh but there is not even a single case
registered against the Petitioner with respect to illegal
mining. Further the Petitioner has not been declared as a
mining mafia by any authority or court of law.
d) The Respondents are maliciously attempting to
project the Petitioner, who is a Chancellor of Glocal
University, as a hardened criminal when the fact is that
every time the Petitioner and his family members were
granted protection by the Courts, the Police immediately
registered new FIRs against them, It is submitted that
the State of Uttar Pradesh is misusing its administrative
as well as police machinery to harass the Petitioner and
his family members by registering false cases against
them. Further the State authorities have not only illegally
demolished three residential houses of the Petitioner but
has also registered false criminal cases against even
those persons who stand surety for the Petitioner and
his family members in cases where bail or anticipatory
bail has been granted to them.
e) It is submitted that after the change of Government in
the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 2017, the ruling
party came to power and immediately after the change
of Government the Petitioner along with his family
6
members were falsely implicated in more than 30
criminal cases at the behest of the ruling party. Although
the Respondent State is heavily relying upon the criminal
cases registered against the Petitioner and his family
members to show that they are habitual offenders but
till date the Petitioner has not been convicted by any
Court of law and moreover every time the Petitioner or
his family members gets protection (anticipatory bail or
stay of arrest) from either this Hon’ble Court or the
Hon’ble High Court, the local Police immediately registers
false cases against them.
f) It is submitted that the alleged Look Out Notice dated
10.05.2022 was issued much prior to the registration of
the present FIR No. 195 of 2022 which was registered on
25.08.2022 and as such is inconsequential.
g) It is respectfully submitted that the alleged First
Information Report has been maliciously instituted at the
behest of the present ruling party in the State of Uttar
Pradesh to wreak vengeance and to settle political scores
with the Petitioner as he belongs to a rival political party
and he was also a Member of Legislative Council from
the period 2011 to 2016. The Petitioner belongs to a
respectable family of Saharanpur and he is running
several Charitable Institutions.
h) The allegations made in the First Information Report
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case under Sections 376-D and 506 IPC against the
Petitioner and thus, the FIR is liable to be quashed. It is
pertinent to mention that even after the charge sheet has
been filed, the petition for quashing of a FIR is well
within the powers of a Court of law [Please see:
ANAND
KUMAR MOHATTA & ANOTHER VS. STATE (NCT OF
DELHI), DEPARTMENT OF HOME & ANOTHER (2019)
11 SCC 706 at paragraph 14 & 16].
i) For the reasons mentioned above, the Special Leave
Petition may be allowed and the order of the Hon’ble
High Court refusing to quash the FIR No. 195 of 2022
dated 25.08.2022 be set aside.”
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
7
9. Ms. Garima Prasad, the learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the State of U.P. in her written
submissions has stated as under:-
“a) That in the above FIR, there are total 6 accused
persons namely Zaved, Haji Iqbal @ Bala, Mahmood,
Afjal, Alishan, Zishan, out of the above accused person,
only Accused Iqbal @ Bala has filed the present petition
for quashing the said FIR before this Hon’ble Court.
b) During investigation, the statement of Complainant
was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as 164
Cr.P.C., wherein the complainant has supported the
version of the complaint.
c) The Investigation has been completed and chargesheet
is ready to file against the Petitioners but due to stay
order of this Hon’ble Court, the chargesheet could not be
submitted.
d) It is pertinent to mention that the chargesheet has
been filed against the other accused Persons and the
trial was commenced.
e) It is correct and admitted that with the change of
dispensation/Government, complainants/terrified
peoples/aggrieved persons, who are poor persons, poor
farmers, small contractors, have been able to come
forward to register or lodge criminal complaints against
the Gangster Iqbal @ Bala and his family members as
well as associates. Due to illegal support by the earlier
dispensation/Government to these criminals, actions
were not taken.
f) It is submitted that in number of cases, this Hon’ble
Court has held that any statement of rape is an
extremely humiliating experience for a woman and until
she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone
but the real culprit. While appreciating the evidence of
the prosecutrix, the Courts must always keep in mind
that no self- respecting woman would put her honour at
stake by falsely alleging commission of rape on her and,
therefore, ordinarily a look for corroboration of her
8
testimony is unnecessary and uncalled for. Therefore, the
delay in lodging the criminal case in rape cases is not
fatal the case of prosecution.
In view of the aforementioned factual & legal
submissions, it is most respectfully submitted that the
present special leave petition of the Petitioners is liable to
be dismissed with exemplary cost and the impugned
order 17.10.2022 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15172 of 2022 is liable
to be upheld.”
ANALYSIS
10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and having gone through the materials on record, the
only question that falls for our consideration is whether the FIR
bearing No. 195 of 2022 lodged against the appellant herein
should be quashed?
11. We take notice of the fact that in the entire FIR there is
not a whisper of any allegation of rape or criminal
intimidation against the appellant herein. All that appears on
a plain reading of the FIR is that the appellant has been
named as the accused No. 2. The other co-accused persons
are directly or indirectly related to the appellant. The
appellant is a Vice Chancellor of the Glocal University. We
may not go into the serious allegations of political bias, etc.
levelled by the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant, but at the same time we should also not overlook
the fact that for some reason or the other, the appellant is
9
being targeted. The appellant has been shown as a history
sheeter. If the FIR does not disclose anything against the
appellant and even at the end of the investigation, if nothing
incriminating has surfaced against the appellant herein, then
the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
appellant herein would be nothing but gross abuse of the
process of law. It appears that so far as the other co-accused
are concerned, the investigation has been completed and
charge sheet has also been filed. It further appears that the
trial is in progress.
12. We are of the view that in the absence of any
particular allegation in the FIR against the appellant herein,
the High Court should not have declined to quash the FIR by
way of a cryptic order saying that the appellant has criminal
antecedents and the FIR prima facie reveals commission of
congnizable offences. The High Court should have first
inquired as to what type of allegations have been levelled
against the appellant. By just naming the appellant in the
FIR, offence cannot be said to have been committed by him.
If any particular role is attributed or some kind of active
participation is alleged in relation to the alleged offence, then
it would be a different scenario.
10
13. There is something more to add to the aforesaid and
the same goes to the root of the matter. We take notice of the
fact that for the alleged act of gang rape of 2018, the FIR
came to be lodged sometime in the year 2022 i.e. after almost
a period of four years. We do not propose to say anything in
regard to delay in lodging the FIR as the trial against the
other accused persons is in progress. The Trial Court on its
own will examine this aspect. It cannot be lost sight of that
rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the
victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can
cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused
as well. The accused must also be protected against the
possibility of false implication, particularly where a large
number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in
mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was
present at the time when the incident happened and that
ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual
assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for
assuming that the statement of such a witness is always
correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration.[See :
Raju & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2008) 15 SCC
133]
11
14. 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 against
the 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
12
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 wreaking vengeance out of private or
personal grudge as alleged.
15. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that
no case is made out to put the appellant herein to trial for the
alleged offence.
16. We have also looked into the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 resply. In their
counter affidavit also, there is nothing to indicate that the
appellant herein as one of the accused persons had
committed the offence as alleged. All that has been stated in
13
the counter affidavit is that the appellant is a hardened
criminal and against him multiple FIRs have been registered
over a period of time for different offences.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal succeeds and is
hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad is hereby set aside. The criminal
proceedings arising from FIR No. 195 of 2022 dated 25.08.2022
registered at Police Station Mirzapur, Saharanpur, State of U.P.
are hereby quashed so far as the appellant herein is concerned.
18. It is needless to clarify that the observations made in
this judgment are relevant only for the purpose of the FIR in
question and the consequential criminal proceedings. None of
the observations shall have any bearing on any of the pending
criminal prosecutions or any other proceedings.
………………………………..J.
( B.R. GAVAI )
………………………………..J.
( J.B. PARDIWALA )
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 08, 2023
14