Can't Use S.482 CrPC To 'Short Circuit' Prosecution: Delhi HC Refuses To Quash FIRs Against Woman's Kin Accused Of Outraging Her Modesty
While hearing petitions seeking quashing of FIRs filed by a relative of the accused, the Delhi High Court observed while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the high court would not normally determine whether evidence is reliable as that is the Trial Court's function. The court further remarked that while judicial process must not be used used for harassment, Section 482 cannot be...
While hearing petitions seeking quashing of FIRs filed by a relative of the accused, the Delhi High Court observed while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the high court would not normally determine whether evidence is reliable as that is the Trial Court's function.
The court further remarked that while judicial process must not be used used for harassment, Section 482 cannot be used as an instrument by the accused to "short circuit" prosecution.
“While dealing with such cases, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence, which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, the Court would not ordinarily embark upon an inquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it the accusations would not be sustained; that is the function of the Trial Court. Judicial process no doubt, should not be an instrument of operation or needless harassment yet at the same time, this Section cannot be used as an instrument by the accused to short circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death.”
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made these observations while dealing with petitions seeking quashing of FIR under IPC Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (outraging modesty of woman) registered against petitioner no. 1 and Section 509 IPC against petitioner no. 2. The petitioners are the cousin and uncle of the complainant respectively.
The first FIR was registered against the cousin of the complainant (petitioner no. 1) stating that when he was visiting the suit property, he prepared a video of the complainant without her permission and thereafter pushed her against the wall and touched her chest inappropriately. The second FIR was registered against the uncle of the complainant (petitioner no. 2) alleging that while she and her mother were going in the car, he tried to overtake her car and when she looked at him, he showed his middle finger to the complainant.
The petitioners and the complainant and her family have disputes amongst them over a property. The uncle (petitioner no. 2) of the complainant claimed that he is the absolute owner of the subject property. The petitioners stated the complainant and her mother illegally occupied the property and raised unauthorized constructions. They submitted that the complainant maliciously implicated them in the false criminal complaints with the sole intention of causing harassment and mental agony.
The High Court observed that there are disputes between the complainant and her family and the petitioners over the subject property in respect of which several civil and criminal litigations have been instituted.
Perusing the complaints against the petitioners, the Court was of the view that the FIRs prima facie disclosed the commission of an offence. It stated that the allegations cannot be considered absurd or inherently improbable for not proceeding against the accused. It further noted that litigation between the parties itself cannot be a ground to presume that the allegations are false.
“The two Complaints when read in toto, do disclose the prima facie commission of offence under which the two FIRs have been registered. Further, the allegations made in the FIR, cannot be held to be absurd or inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. There may have been inter se litigation, but that cannot be a ground to presume that the allegations made in the Complaint, are inherently improbable or absurd.”
The Court opined that the allegations in the FIR did not reflect that they were made maliciously with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the petitioners.
Noting that the FIRs did not appear to be vexatious, the Court refused to quash them and dismissed the petition.
Case title: Greesh Verma Jairath vs. State NCT Of Delhi (CRL.M.C. 2070/2021) & Connected Matters
