Courts Must Examine Circumstances Beyond Allegations In FIR In Potentially Vexatious Proceedings: J&K High Court
Emphasising the need to look beyond the FIR in cases potentially involving frivolous complaints, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed an FIR against a person finding him to be falsely implicated in a case of assault and molestation.A bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal while referencing Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. State of UP and ors”. Salib v. State of U.P., 2023 reiterated...
Emphasising the need to look beyond the FIR in cases potentially involving frivolous complaints, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed an FIR against a person finding him to be falsely implicated in a case of assault and molestation.
A bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal while referencing Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. State of UP and ors”. Salib v. State of U.P., 2023 reiterated that courts have a duty to examine the “attending circumstances” beyond the allegations in the FIR, especially when dealing with potentially vexatious proceedings arising from personal disputes.
These observations came in a petition involving Yunius Hussain, an employee of the Additional Mobile Magistrate, Samba, who was implicated in FIR for offences under Sections 354, 323, 147, and 506 IPC. The FIR was lodged by Ruveena Akhter, who alleged that Hussain and others assaulted her and her relatives. This accusation arose amidst a pending civil suit over property disputes involving Hussain's brothers and Akhter's family.
Petitioner Hussain argued through his counsel Mr. Jagpaul Singh that his name did not appear in the original FIR or in the complainant's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He claimed his implication was an afterthought motivated by his court employment.
Conversely, the respondent's counsel, Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, supported by Mr. Vivek Mattoo, contended that the investigation substantiated the charges against Hussain.
Meticulously reviewing the case records, including the FIR and statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C the court noted that the original complaint and subsequent key witness testimonies did not mention Hussain. It was only much later that a witness, Gulzar Hussain, introduced his name.
The court highlighted that the complainant's statement, recorded nine days post-incident, mentioned threats by other accused referencing Hussain's court employment but did not implicate him in the assault.
“The complainant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. has clearly stated that Majid Hussain was threatening her to do whatever she wanted to do, and they were not afraid of the court because Yunius Hussain was working there. She has not even attributed any act, overt or covert to the petitioner in her statement”, the bench remarked.
Underscoring that a mere late addition of an accused's name in a statement, absent from the FIR, could indicate false implication the court emphasised the need for courts to consider the entire context and the potential for fabricated charges.
Citing State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Justice Oswal highlighted situations where the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash FIRs and concluded that Hussain's implication fell under the category of an FIR “manifestly attended with mala fide and/or instituted with an ulterior motive.”
Terming the investigations against Hussain as an abuse of process of law, Justice Oswal quashed the FIR insofar as it implicated him.
Case Title: Yunius Hussain Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 167
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment