Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jagmohan And Another vs State Of H.P. And Another on 4 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 63 of 2024 .
Reserved on: 30.07.2024 Date of Decision: 4.9.2024.
Jagmohan and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and another
Coram
r to ...Respondents
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. B.L. Soni, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 8 of 2022, dated 4.4.2022, registered at Women Police Station Chamba for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and order dated 13.7.2022, passed by learned Chief Judicial 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 2Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) Magistrate, Chamba. It has been asserted that the informant filed a complaint against the petitioners with the allegations .
that she was mentally and physically ill-treated. The petitioners did not settle the matter between the informant and her husband. The informant's husband used to beat her and quarrel with her in a state of intoxication. He also obtained financial assistance from the informant. The police registered the FIR and filed the challan against the petitioners. Learned Trial Court took cognizance vide order dated 13.7.2022. The allegations against the petitioners are general. The petitioners reside in Dharamshala. The informant resides at Chamba in connection with her service. The informant had not specified at what place she was treated with cruelty. She has not even given the details of the place where she resided with the petitioners. There is no eyewitness to support the informant's version. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and the consequent proceedings be ordered to be quashed.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a reply by the State making preliminary submission regarding lack of maintainability. The contents of the petition were denied on merits; however, it was not disputed that FIR No. 8 of 2022 was ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) registered against the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 read with .
Section 34 of IPC. The offences committed by the petitioners fall in the category of heinous offences and they are to be treated as crimes against the society. The police have collected sufficient material to show the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of crime. Petitioner No.1 had caused mental and physical cruelty to respondent No.2 at her matrimonial home and the rented home. Learned Trial Court is seized of the matter and this Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
3. A separate reply was filed by respondent No.2/informant taking preliminary submissions regarding lack of maintainability and the petitioners having not approached the Court with clean hands. The contents of the petition were denied on merits. It was asserted that a challan has been filed against the petitioners and the remedy is to approach the learned Trial Court. The informant had filed an application before Superintendent of Police, Chamba which was acknowledged by SHO, Women Police Station, Chamba. This ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) application was referred to in the FIR as well as in the report.
The ingredients of the application have not been incorporated in .
the FIR. The informant has supplied the details of the payment made to the petitioners. The petitioners had made the informant a co-borrower in the house loan taken by them. These facts show the active involvement of the petitioners. The petitioners victimized the informant; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
4. I have heard Mr. B.L. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State and Mr. Nimish Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2/informant.
5. Mr. B.L. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no specific allegations were made against the petitioners. The continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharif Ahmed and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2024 INSC 363, Achin Gupta vs. State of ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) Haryana and another, 2024 INSC 369, Neelu Chopra and another Vs. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184 and Veena Anand Vs. State of H.P. and .
another 2024: HHC:4268 in support of his submission.
6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State submitted that there is sufficient material against the petitioners. The police conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the petitioners.
The remedy of the petitioners is to approach the learned Trial Court where the matter is pending, therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
7. Mr. Nimish Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the informant had made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police which was referred to in the FIR as well as the charge sheet. The contents of the complaint were not reproduced in the FIR and another FIR was lodged to benefit the petitioners. This Court has the inherent power to direct further investigation to ascertain the actual role played by the petitioners. The matter is pending before the learned Trial Court and the petitioners should approach the learned Trial Court for the redressal of their grievances. He relied upon the judgment of ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) this Court in Sneh Lata and another Vs. State of H.P. and others 2024:HHC:5725 in support of his submission.
.
8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
9. The parameters for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme was observed: -
r to Court in A.M. Mohan v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339, wherein it
9. The law with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited (2006) 6 SCC 736: 2006 INSC 452 after considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read thus:
"12. The principles relating to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few-- Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692: 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194: 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591: 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164: 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259: 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269: 2000 SCC (Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168: 2000 SCC .
(Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645: 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122: 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused.
rFor this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is warranted while examining prayer for quashing a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are necessary for making out the offence.
.
(v.) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.
10. Similar is the judgment in Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643, wherein it was held: -
12. We may gainfully refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1990 INSC 363:
"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 extraordinary 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 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) 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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the r 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 FIR 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 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) 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.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the r rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
11. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 286:
2009 SCC OnLine SC 1693 that the Court has to see that particulars of the offences committed by every accused and the role played by the accused in committing the offence are given in the complaint made to the police. It was observed: -
"9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, the mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing that offence.
10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly .
vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein, on the basis of a vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants." (Emphasis supplied)
12. Similarly, it was held in Abhishek v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083: 2023 INSC 779 that the tendency of false implication by way of general omnibus allegations if left unchecked would result in the misuse of the process of law. It was observed:
"13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left .
unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that the Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases, such as allegations of harassment by the husband's close relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184], this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the 'be all and end all' of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC." (Emphasis supplied) ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 )
13. It was held in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759:2024 INSC 369 that asking a person to face .
criminal allegations without any specific instance of criminal misconduct amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. It was observed: -
"18. The plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet papers indicate that the allegations levelled by the First Informant are quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. It is also pertinent to note that in the FIR no specific date or time of the alleged offence/offences has been disclosed. Even the police thought fit to drop the proceedings against the other members of the Appellant's family. Thus, we are of the view that the FIR lodged by Respondent No. 2 was nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition & also the domestic violence case.
25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute." (Emphasis supplied)
14. It was further held that if there is an involvement of the husband and close relative with an oblique motive, the Court should read between the lines to do substantial justice. It was observed:-
::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 14Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) "31. We are of the view that category 7 referred to above should be taken into consideration and applied in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. If the Court is .
convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of her husband and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence the Court with a view to doing substantial justice should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter. If the submission canvassed by the counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 and the State is to be accepted mechanically then in our opinion the very conferment of the inherent power by the Cr. P.C. upon the High Court would be rendered otiose. We are saying so for the simple reason that if the wife on account of matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband and his family members then the first thing, she would ensure is to see that proper allegations are levelled in the First Information Report. Many times the services of professionals are availed for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However, that does not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are allegations in the First Information Report and the chargesheet papers disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. If the allegations alone as levelled, more particularly in a case like the one on hand, are to be looked into or considered then why the investigating agency thought fit to file a closure report against the other co-accused? There is no answer to this at the end of the learned counsel appearing for the State. We say so because allegations have been levelled not only against the Appellant herein but even against his parents, brother & sister. If that be so, then why the police did not deem it fit to file a chargesheet against the other co-accused? It appears that even the investigating agency was convinced that the FIR was nothing but an outburst arising from a matrimonial dispute." (Emphasis supplied) ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 15 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 )
15. It was held that in matrimonial disputes, the parents including the close relatives make a mountain out of a mole and .
every matrimonial conduct amounting to nuisance does not constitute cruelty. It was observed:-
"32. Many times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings about the complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that comes to mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police as if the Police are the panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches up to the Police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance of each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles and trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hyper-sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes, the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom in their hearts that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned.::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 16
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) The only reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill-
.
treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill- treatment or harassment may vary. However, the Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends. In all cases, where the wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically.
No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, and quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty"
16. Similarly, it was held in Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v.
State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 127: 2024 (2) SCR 252 that the phenomena of false implication by general omnibus allegation in the case of matrimonial dispute are not unknown to the Court.
When the allegations are general and omnibus, the prosecution should not be continued. It was observed: -
"14. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is significant merit in the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants. A bare perusal of the complaint, statement of witnesses and the charge sheet shows that the allegations against the Appellants are wholly general and omnibus in nature; even if they are ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 17 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) taken in their entirety, they do not prima facie make out a case against the Appellants. The material on record neither discloses any particulars of the offences alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned .
to any of the Appellants in the commission of the offences.
15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of general omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes is not unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, this Court dealt with a similar case wherein the allegations made by the complainant-wife against her in-laws u/s. 498A and others were vague and general, lacking any specific role and particulars. The court proceeded to quash the FIR against the accused persons and noted that such a situation if left unchecked, would result in the abuse of the process of law.
xxxx
17. Considering the dicta in Mahmood Ali (supra), we find that the High Court in this case has failed to exercise due care and has mechanically permitted the criminal proceedings to continue despite specifically finding that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. The Appellants herein approached the High Court on inter alia grounds that the proceedings were re-initiated on vexatious grounds and even highlighted the commencement of divorce proceedings by Respondent No. 2. In these peculiar circumstances, the High Court had a duty to consider the allegations with great care and circumspection so as to protect against the danger of unjust prosecution."
17. The present case has to be seen with the yardsticks laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 18Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 )
18. The FIR reads that the informant made a complaint to the police stating that she was married to Aditya in the year .
2013. Her husband started beating her in a state of intoxication.
He also used to say that he would spend the informant's money as per his wish. He was running a restaurant in Dharamshala. He suffered a loss in the business. The informant took a personal loan twice from her PPF account. The informant's husband stated that the amount was not sufficient and the informant had to take the money from her parents. Her husband, her father-
in-law Jagmohan and mother-in-law Jeevan continued to harass her physically and mentally. Her parents-in-law would say that it is normal for men to take liquor and she should not say anything to her husband. The informant narrated this incident to her parents who told her that things would improve with time. The informant's husband used to quarrel with her in her rented accommodation at Chamba. He had argued with the informant in December 2021 and he had also abused the informant. She narrated this to her friend Dr Ranjeet Kaur, who told her that the informant's husband would improve with time.
The informant went to her matrimonial home in February 2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 19 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) where her husband harassed her for money. The informant left her matrimonial home with her daughter.
.
19. It is apparent from the perusal of FIR that only one allegation has been made against the petitioners that they used to support the informant's husband by saying that men consume liquor and that the informant should not quarrel with her husband. A general statement was made by her that her parents-in-law harassed her physically and mentally. This statement is not sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 498-A of IPC as specific allegations regarding the nature of harassment with specific particulars are required to be given.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Sharif Ahmed v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 726 that the Investigating Officer has to specify the role played by the accused in the commission of the crime in the charge sheet. It was observed: -
"31. Therefore, the investigating officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the chargesheet so that the court can clearly understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file. Statements under Section 161 of the Code and related documents have to be enclosed with the list of witnesses. The role played by the accused in the crime should be separately and clearly mentioned in the chargesheet, for each of the accused persons."::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 20
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 )
20. In the present case, such a role has not been given.
The details are lacking and only vague allegations have been .
made regarding the harassment which is not sufficient as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
21. It was submitted that the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. Therefore, the learned Trial Court should be left to determine the veracity of the allegations. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Sneh Lata (supra). In the present case, it has been found that assuming the contents of the FIR to be correct, no case is made out against the petitioners because no specific allegations have been made against them in the FIR. Therefore, there is no question of determining the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. The Court has to take the allegations in the FIR to be correct and proceed further. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta (supra) that it would be a travesty of justice to hold that the proceedings initiated against the person can be interfered with at the stage of the FIR but not if it has materialized into a charge sheet. It was observed:-
::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 21Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 )
"22. Once the investigation is over and the chargesheet is filed, the FIR pales into insignificance. The court, thereafter, owes a duty to look into all the materials collected by the investigating agency in the form of a .
charge sheet. There is nothing in the words of Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. which restricts the exercise of the power of the court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It would be a travesty of justice to hold that the proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has materialized into a chargesheet."
22. It was submitted that the informant had made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Chamba which was not converted into the FIR and this Court should direct the registration of the FIR based on the complaint made by the informant. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devender Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2023) 1 SCC 48 in support of this submission. This submission cannot be accepted. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048: 2001 SCC OnLine SC 805 that a second FIR cannot be registered regarding the same incident. It was observed:
"17. Sub-section (1) of Section 154 CrPC contains four mandates for an officer in charge of a police station. The first enjoins that every piece of information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally shall be reduced to writing and the second directs that it ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 22 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) be read over to the informant; the third requires that every such information whether given in writing or reduced to writing shall be signed by the informant and the fourth is that the substance of such information shall .
be entered in the station house diary. It will be apt to note here a further directive contained in sub-section (1) of Section 157 CrPC which provides that immediately on receipt of the information the officer in charge of the police station shall send a report of every cognizable offence to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence and then proceed to investigate or depute his subordinate officer to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case. Sub-section (2) entitles the informant to receive a copy of the information, as recorded under sub-section (1), free of cost. Sub-section (3) says that in the event of an officer in charge of a police station refusing to record the information as postulated under sub-section (1), a person aggrieved thereby may send the substance of such information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who is given an option either to investigate the case himself or direct the investigation to be made by a police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by CrPC, if he is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The police officer to whom the investigation is entrusted by the Superintendent of Police has all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station about that offence.
18. An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 CrPC is commonly known as the first information report (FIR) though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important document. And as its nickname suggests it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station.
It sets the criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and the forwarding of a police report ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 23 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) under Section 173 CrPC. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more information than one is given to a police officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one .
cognizable offence. In such a case he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in Section 154 CrPC. Apart from vague information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the first information report -- FIR postulated by Section 154 CrPC.
All other information made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the first information report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 CrPC. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an FIR and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of CrPC. Take a case where an FIR mentions cognizable offence under Section 307 or 326 IPC and the investigating agency learns during the investigation or receives fresh information that the victim died, no fresh FIR under Section 302 IPC needs to be registered which will be irregular; in such a case alteration of the provision of law in the first FIR is the proper course to adopt. Let us consider a different situation in which H having killed W, his wife, informs the police that she was killed by an unknown person or knowing that W was killed by his mother or sister, H owns up to the responsibility and during the investigation, the truth is detected; it does not require the filing of fresh FIR against H -- the real offender -- who can be arraigned in the report under Section 173(2) or 173(8) CrPC, as the case may be. It is of course permissible for the investigating officer to send up a report to the Magistrate concerned ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 24 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) even earlier that the investigation is being directed against the person suspected to be the accused.
19. The scheme of CrPC is that an officer in charge of a .
police station has to commence an investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 CrPC on the basis of entry of the first information report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of the investigation and the basis of the evidence collected, he has to form an opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(2) CrPC. However, even after filing such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR; he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC.
20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC.
Thus there can be no second FIR and consequently, there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC."
::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 25Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 )
23. In the present case, the informant did not insist that .
the complaint made by her to the Superintendent of Police should be treated as an FIR and she filed an application which resulted in the registration of the FIR. Since the FIR has been registered at the instance of the informant, she cannot say that another FIR should be registered based on the complaint made by her to the Superintendent of Police.
24. Even otherwise, it was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, (2023) 1 SCC 48: (2023) 1 SCC (Cri) 270: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1389 that the investigation is a matter left to the Investigating Agency and the Court cannot direct the Investigating Agency to investigate the matter in a particular manner in exercise of its inherent power.
It was observed at page 76:
"45.5. The powers under Section 482CrPC are not unlimited or untrammelled and are essentially for the purpose of real and substantial justice. While exercising such powers, the High Court cannot issue directions so as to be impinging upon the power and jurisdiction of other authorities. For example, the High Court cannot issue directions to the State to take advice of the State Public Prosecutor as to under what provision of law a person is to be charged and tried when ordering further ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 26 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 ) investigation or reinvestigation; and it cannot issue directions to investigate the case only from a particular angle. In the exercise of such inherent powers in extraordinary circumstances, the High Court cannot .
specifically direct that as a result of further investigation or reinvestigation, a particular person has to be prosecuted."
25. Therefore, it is not permissible to accept the submissions made on behalf of the informant to direct the police to treat the initial complaint made to the Superintendent of Police as the FIR.r
26. No other point was urged.
27. Since there are no specific allegations against the petitioners, therefore, the continuation of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
28. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No. 8 of 2022, dated 4.4.2022, registered at Women Police Station Chamba for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and the consequent proceedings arising out of the same are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.
::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS 27Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7874 )
29. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, .
whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
4th September 2024
(Chander)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2024 20:32:46 :::CIS