Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.236 dated 15.09.2021 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 384, 511 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

The FIR in the present case has been registered on 15.09.2021, on the statement of respondent No.2 Jagdeep Singh/complainant, as per which, the occurrence has been stated to have taken place during the period starting from 10.10.2019 to 15.09.2021. In his statement, the complainant has alleged that the 1 of 63 petitioner was having enmity against father of the complainant since 2008 and the petitioner in connivance with his accomplices, had got registered a false rape case against the complainant in the year 2019, so that he could blackmail the complainant and could take Rs.14 lakhs from the complainant and could take revenge on account of his enmity and in the said FIR, the SHO and Superintendent of Police had declared the complainant innocent. It is further alleged that as per the enquiry report of the police officials, the petitioner got the said false case registered against the complainant for taking Rs.14 lakhs from the complainant. It is further alleged that in the year 2020, Gurjit Singh had told the complainant that one girl 'S' (name withheld) was demanding money by blackmailing the said Gurjit Singh and the complainant being an advocate, advised Gurjit Singh to get a case registered against the said girl 'S' and as per the advice given by the complainant, the said Gurjit Singh got a case registered under Section 384 IPC against 'S' and it was the petitioner who helped 'S' in getting bail and then provoked 'S' to register a false case against the complainant, but said 'S' refused to do so and got registered the rape case i.e. case 307/2020, only against Gurjit Singh, which was subsequently cancelled as the same was found to be false. It is further alleged that now, the petitioner, in connivance with wrong persons, is demanding Rs.14 lakhs from the complainant and has threatened that in case, the said amount is not paid, then a false rape case will again be registered against the complainant. On the basis of the said 2 of 63 complaint and allegations, the present FIR under Sections 384, 511 and 506 IPC has been registered.

Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported as 2015(6) SCC 287, to contend that the proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C are on a higher footing than the proceedings under Section 154 Cr.P.C., 7 of 63 inasmuch as, in the said proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a Court of law is involved and even in the said proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that at the time of filing of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it was incumbent upon the complainant/applicant to specifically indicate that earlier applications under Section 154 (1) and 154 (3) have been filed. Even supporting affidavit is also required to be filed alongwith the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC. It is submitted that once in the proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it is necessary to mention about the said application, it is equally incumbent upon respondent No.2 to have mentioned about the filing of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Moonak in his complaint on the basis of which the present FIR has been registered. It is, thus, submitted that the present petition for quashing deserves to be allowed solely on the ground of active concealment/suppression of the proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and the orders passed therein. Additionally, it is submitted that once respondent No.2 has been summoned in proceedings under Section 319 Cr.P.C., then, the allegations in the FIR to the effect that respondent No.2 was falsely involved in the case,cannot stand. It is submitted that the FIR also deserves to be quashed on the ground that the police officials cannot act in violation of the the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Moonak, moreso, the order dated 20.07.2020 vide which,it was specifically observed that the application under Section 156(3) CrPC did not warrant registration of an FIR. Learned counsel for the 8 of 63 petitioner has also argued that even the allegations to the effect that the petitioner is demanding Rs.14 lakhs and is threatening the complainant to involve in a false rape case in case the amount is not paid, are vague, inasmuch as, no details as to when the said demand was made or when the threat was issued have been mentioned in the FIR and at any rate, would not constitute an offence and have apparently been made only to get the present false FIR registered for mala-fide reasons to harass the present petitioner. It is submitted that the act and conduct of respondent No.2 is contemptuous, inasmuch as respondent No.2 has made every effort to win over the prosecutrix or to pressurize the prosecutrix with respect to the FIR No.263 dated 15.09.2021. It is submitted that initially an attempt was made to falsely involve the said prosecutrix 'R' in proceedings under Section 182 IPC and once the same was rejected on the basis of an opinion given by the Deputy DA, Sangrur, then a complaint was also got filed from the said prosecutrix 'R', even after she had given evidence against respondent No.2 before the trial court and in the said complaint, certain averments in favour of respondent No.2 were sought to be incorporated. However, the said complaint was also withdrawn on 18.11.2021 (Annexure P-13) as respondent No.2 was aware that any statement contrary to the evidence given in the Court could result in initiation of proceedings against the persons, who were trying to influence the said witness. It is submitted that the present FIR was also registered on false, frivolous and vague allegations only on the understanding of Respondent no 2 that the present petitioner 9 of 63 may have some influence on the said prosecutrix 'R' and by registering the present FIR, the petitioner might persuade the said prosecutrix 'R' to withdraw the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C, which had been filed on 24.08.2021, immediately prior to the registration of the FIR dated 15.09.2021. It is submitted that in fact respondent No.2 had abused the process of the Court and had made every attempt to influence the prosecutrix and to tamper with the evidence. It is submitted that no offence under Section 384, Section 511 or Section 506 has been made out.

Adverting to the facts of the present case and after keeping in mind the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of various High Courts, detailed hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the present FIR deserves to be quashed for the reasons detailed hereinbelow.

A perusal of the present FIR dated 15.09.2021 would show that the period for which the offences alleged to have been committed is from 10.10.2019 to 15.09.2021 and the same are with respect to two incidents. First incident being with respect to the petitioner allegedly involving respondent No.2 in a false rape case in the year 2019, which has been registered on the statement of 'R' (name withheld) against Gurpreet Singh @ Goldy, Jagdeep Singh son of Najar Singh and respondent no.2 and the second incident pertains to the year 2020 involving Gurjeet Singh and one girl 'S' (name withheld) and the allegation against the petitioner in the same is with respect to demand of Rs.14 lakhs from respondent No.2, failing which, it has been alleged that he would involve the respondent No.2 in a false rape case. It is not in dispute that the first incident in the present FIR pertains to FIR No.263 dated 10.10.2019, registered under Sections 376, 342, 506 and 120-B IPC and Section 8 of the 38 of 63 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. In the said FIR, the allegations made by the prosecutrix 'R' are against respondent No.2 also. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the said prosecutrix 'R', the present petitioner and three other persons for registration of an FIR under Sections 211, 193, 389 and 120-B IPC on the averment that in the FIR No.263 dated 10.10.2019, the police had found the respondent no.2 to be innocent and thus, a false case was registered against Respndent no.2. The relevant part of the said application dated 07.07.2020 under Section 156(3) is reproduced hereinbelow: -

In the present case, there is no overt act alleged in the FIR and it has only been vaguely stated that the petitioner is threatening to implicate respondent No.2 in a false rape case and thus, as per the law laid by the above-said judgments and also, as per the settled principles of law, the provision of Section 506 IPC would not be attracted even in case, the allegations levelled in the FIR are taken on its face value. Even with respect to the offence of extortion/attempt to extort, it is apparent that the allegations are far-fetched and with respect to the second incident, no alleged false case has been registered even till date and thus, the question of seeking money is too far-fetched. In case on the basis of such allegations, an FIR is registered, then, it would be very easy for any person to implicate another person by merely making vague allegations, moreso, when there is previous enmity between the parties. Thus, as per the opinion of this Court, the present FIR registered under Sections 506, 384 and 511 IPC has no legs to stand on. It would be relevant to mention that while deciding the present case and holding that the present FIR deserves to be quashed, the entire material, which was required for the 62 of 63 adjudication of the present case, was before this Court and it could not be said that the facts were incomplete so as to await the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.