Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 30.05.2023
Pronounced on: 04.07.2023
+ CRL.M.C. 2047/2021 & CRL.M.A. 13786/2021
VIKAS LAKRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for the
State with SI Manoj, P.S.
Mundka.
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 (‘Cr.P.C’) read with Article 227 of
Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR
bearing No. 586/2020 registered at Police Station Mundka (Outer
District), New Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 392/34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
2. Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on 21.12.2020,
on the complaint of one Mr. Ram Chander, who had stated that he
was a labourer and that on 21.12.2020 at about 3.30 pm, he had gone
to jungle side near Mundka Depot to attend nature’s call and when he
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.07.2023
15:22:35
CRL. M.C. 2047/2021 Page 1 of 9
was coming back, two young boys including the petitioner herein had
come and overpowered him. The petitioner had grabbed the neck of
complainant and had robbed Rs.600/- from his pocket while the other
had robbed his Nokia Mobile phone. After commission of offence,
both the boys had run in different directions. The petitioner had run
towards the main Rohtak road who was chased by the complainant
and the complainant had met two constables of Highway patrolling
team of P.S. Mundka, who had also joined the chase. Subsequently,
the petitioner was apprehended and brought to the police station
where investigating officer recorded the statement of complainant.
The robbed money of Rs. 600/- of complainant as well as two mobile
phones, reported stolen vide two different FIRs i.e. 59/2020 dated
24.02.2020 and 286/2020 dated 28.10.2020 both registered at P.S.
Mundka, were also recovered from the petitioner. Accordingly, the
petitioner was arrested and after completion of investigation, charge-
sheet was filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that at the time of
commission of alleged offence as mentioned in the complaint, the
petitioner was present in his office and, thus, he could not have
committed the offence in question. In this regard, reliance is placed
on the attendance register of the petitioner in the record of MCD,
Keshav Puram Zone, showing his attendance on the day of incident.
It is also stated by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner
has been acquitted in case FIR bearing no. 59/2020. It is also stated
that the allegations levelled are baseless and motivated and there is
no likelihood or probability that the offence could have been
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.07.2023
15:22:35
CRL. M.C. 2047/2021 Page 2 of 9
committed by the petitioner. It is, therefore, stated that FIR be
quashed since the local police, in connivance with the complainant,
has registered a false FIR against the present petitioner and no
recovery was effected from him.
4. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, argues that
there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner in the
FIR in question and that two stolen mobile phones were recovered
from the possession of petitioner. It is further stated that the
petitioner was not acquitted in the case FIR no. 59/2020 due to his
innocent/false implication, but on account of the fact that the
complainant therein was not intending to pursue the matter as his
mobile phone had been recovered and the same was recorded in the
order dated 02.12.2021 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It
is also stated that the grounds raised in the present petition are a
matter of trial and the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage.
5. This Court has heard arguments on behalf of both the parties
and has perused the material on record.
6. Since the petitioner has approached this Court seeking
quashing of the FIR registered against him, it is pertinent to refer to
the principles that govern quashing of FIRs.
7. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors.
1992 SCC (Cri) 426, the Hon’ble Apex Court had laid down the
principles to be considered while quashing FIRs. The same are
reproduced as under for reference:
"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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.07.2023
15:22:35
CRL. M.C. 2047/2021 Page 3 of 9
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
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,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.07.2023
15:22:35
CRL. M.C. 2047/2021 Page 4 of 9
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."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure v.
State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine 315 , has analysed the
precedents and culled out the relevant principles that govern the law
on quashing of FIRs under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Court has
held as under:
"57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the
decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir
Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge:
i) 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;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences;
iii) 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;
iv) 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 Court);
v) 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;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.07.2023
15:22:35
CRL. M.C. 2047/2021 Page 5 of 9
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial
stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and
a rarity than an ordinary rule;
viii) 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.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
x) 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;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according
to its whims or caprice;
xii) 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;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but
conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It
casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.07.2023
15:22:35
CRL. M.C. 2047/2021 Page 6 of 9
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
xv) 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."
??. In the present case, the petitioner is alleged to have robbed
the complainant in broad daylight along with his associate. As far as
the contentions regarding petitioner’s attendance in his office on the
day of alleged incident i.e. 21.12.2020 is concerned, it has been
revealed during the investigation that the petitioner was arrested on
21.12.2020 at 3.30 pm, on the basis of complaint made by Mr. Ram
Chander, by police patrolling team within the jurisdiction of P.S.
Mundka and recovery of the robbed amount of Rs. 600/- along with
two mobile phones was effected from him. These two mobile phones
were reported to have been stolen earlier for which separate
complaints had been lodged with P.S. Mundka, which had
culminated into FIR no. 59/2020 dated 24.02.2020 and FIR no.
286/2020 dated 28.10.2020, both under Section 379 of IPC.
Accordingly, the petitioner was also arrested in these two FIRs under
Section 411 of IPC.
??. The present case is at the initial stage of trial and since the
evidence which has emerged on record during investigation puts the
petitioner’s defence of alibi under suspicion, the same has to be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.07.2023
15:22:35
CRL. M.C. 2047/2021 Page 7 of 9
tested during the trial upon leading evidence and on the touchstone of
cross-examination.
11. Further, as regards the contention that the petitioner has
already been acquitted in case arising out of FIR no. 59/2020, this
Court notes that in the said FIR, the matter had not been decided on
merits, rather it was compounded since the complainant had appeared
before the learned Magistrate and had stated that because he had got
the possession of his stolen mobile phone, he did not want to pursue
the case against the petitioner. Therefore, the recovery of mobile
phone from the petitioner was not disputed and the matter was
compounded between the complainant and petitioner. It is to be noted
that compounding of offence can take place between two parties, and
in a case under Section 411 IPC, it can be done by the complainant
who is the owner of the property in question. Therefore, it was the
petitioner also who had compounded the offence as the mobile had
been recovered from him, thereby making it clear that the recovery
was made from his possession.
12. When the present case is tested on the anvil of the principles
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) and
Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) , this Court cannot come to a
conclusion that the allegations against the petitioner are absurd in
nature or improbable or that the offence as alleged could not have
taken place. On the basis of the facts & circumstances of the case and
the material available on record, this Court does not find it a fit case
for quashing of FIR.
13. In view thereof, the present petition along with pending
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.07.2023
15:22:35
CRL. M.C. 2047/2021 Page 8 of 9
application stands dismissed.
14. However, it is clarified that all the contentions and defence
raised before this Court as well as the plea of alibi can be raised by
the petitioner before the Trial Court concerned, which will be dealt
with appropriately at the appropriate stage of trial by the learned Trial
Court.
15. Nothing expressed herein will tantamount to an expression
of opinion on merits of the case.
16. The judgment be uploaded on website forthwith.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JULY 4, 2023/kss
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.07.2023
15:22:35
CRL. M.C. 2047/2021 Page 9 of 9