Writ Petition For Quashing Of FIR Can't Serve As Substitute For Availing Remedies Under BNSS: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking quashing of an FIR cannot serve as a substitute for availing remedies specifically provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for securing personal liberty.Justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation while dismissing a plea moved by an accused in an...
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking quashing of an FIR cannot serve as a substitute for availing remedies specifically provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for securing personal liberty.
Justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation while dismissing a plea moved by an accused in an extortion case seeking to restrain the Delhi Police from effecting his arrest.
It was alleged that the petitioner, along with co accused, grabbed the complainant by the collar in a public place and threatened him in order to extort money.
As per the FIR, when the complainant refused, the Petitioner pulled out a buttoned knife from his trousers and placed it on the complainant's neck. Fearing for his safety, the complainant handed over Rs. 8,000 to the Petitioner. As the Petitioner remained absconding, he was declared as a “Proclaimed Offender” by the trial court.
It was the petitioner's case that he was falsely implicated in the case and had no involvement in the alleged offence. It was submitted that the FIR was a result of a malicious scheme orchestrated by the complainant in collusion with the Investigating Officer, and that the allegations were baseless and unsupported by any corroborative evidence.
The petitioner relied on Supreme Court's judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to contend that the FIR warranted quashing, as the allegations were so inherently improbable and absurd that no reasonable person could conclude there was sufficient ground to proceed against him.
Rejecting the plea; the Court said that the allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable offences.
“…quashing is warranted only in cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any cognizable offence, where the prosecution is manifestly attended with mala fides, or where the allegations are so inherently improbable that no reasonable person can accept them,” the Court said.
It added that the absence of direct eyewitnesses, which was contended by the petitioner, is not a ground for quashing, as criminal acts often take place in a concealed manner.
The Court also rejected petitioner's contention that the FIR was lodged belatedly and that there was no corroborative evidence such as CCTV footage or eyewitness accounts to support the complainant's version.
“As regards the Petitioner's prayer for a direction restraining Respondent No. 1 from taking any coercive action against him, it must be emphasised that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of an FIR, cannot serve as a substitute for availing remedies specifically provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for securing personal liberty,” the Court said.
It added: “In light of the foregoing, this Court finds that the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, do disclose the commission of cognizable offences, and the contentions raised by the Petitioner do not fall within the limited grounds for quashing an FIR….”
Title: VIJAY KUMAR @ CHAMPION v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 317