17 March 2022 4:08 PM GMT
The Delhi High Court has observed that the FIR and chargesheet can be quashed if the allegations made in the FIR or complaint or the evidence collected, though remaining uncontroverted, do not disclose the commission of an offence. Justice Asha Menon was of the view that the the decision of the Court to exercise or not to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would...
The Delhi High Court has observed that the FIR and chargesheet can be quashed if the allegations made in the FIR or complaint or the evidence collected, though remaining uncontroverted, do not disclose the commission of an offence.
Justice Asha Menon was of the view that the the decision of the Court to exercise or not to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would be predicated on the facts of each case, however, while considering the facts, the court cannot embark on an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking quashing of chargesheet dated 4th December, 2021 emanating from an FIR registered with the Crime Branch, Rohini on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 by way of an email addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that that the entire case was a product of mala fide, falsehood and absurdity and this was a case of sheer abuse of the criminal process and was also covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal. Therefore it was prayed that the Court ought to quash the chargesheet in accordance with the guidelines incorporated of the said judgment.
It was contended that property in question belonged to Mr. Sunil Datt and Mr. Ashok Kumar, whereas the complainant who had been divorced by Mr. Sunil Datt way back in 2000 was claiming a right to the ground floor.
It was claimed that the complainant could produce no document to reflect that she had been in possession of the ground floor for the last two years. Moreover, after the husband and wife had divorced, it could not be reasonably believed that 17 years later the respondent No.2 would have been given the keys of the ground floor by the ex-husband.
It was submitted that the aunt of Mr. Sunil Datt and Mr. Ashok Kumar, who were brothers, was living in the first floor of the same property and that there were some disputes inter se parties.
The Court noted that the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal case distilled the principles governing the exercise of the extraordinary power of the court under Article 226.
"When seen on these touchstones, it is clear that the entire thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is on the genuineness of the allegations made against the petitioners," the Court noted.
The Court was of the view that the submissions reflecting on the reliability of the statements of the respondent No.2 or the genuineness of her complaint cannot be subject matter of the proceedings and that the Court cannot weigh the material so as to determine the question of truth in the complaint.
"As observed in Bhajan Lal case (supra), it is when the allegations made in the FIR, if taken at face value alongwith other materials accompanying the FIR, do not disclose an offence, that the court would be justified in quashing the FIR. If the allegations made in the FIR or complaint or the evidence collected, though remaining uncontroverted, do not disclose the commission of an offence, then the FIR and charge-sheet could be quashed," the Court said.
It added that if the allegations in the FIR or complaint were inherently improbable, then the FIR and charge-sheet could be quashed, however, none of the situations prevailed in the matter.
"If these allegations were to be taken at face value or they were to be treated as uncontroverted, they disclose the commission of various offences by the accused persons including the petitioners in cohort with each other. None of these allegations appear to be absurd or inherently improbable," the Court said.
While the Court said that there was no ground to exercise those powers in the present case, it added that it would be open for the accused petitioners, to make their submissions on the material placed before the Trial Court to seek discharge, if at all no offence was made out against them.
"In the light of these discussions, no merit is found in the petition which is dismissed in limine," the Court concluded.
Title: MR. ABHISHEK GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 213
Click Here To Read Order