Throwing On Another Person Any Liquid Or Substance Other Than 'Acid' Not An Offence U/S 326B IPC: Delhi High Court

"...under Section 326-B of the IPC, an offence is made out only if a person throws or attempts to throw ‘acid’ on another person, and not any other liquid or substance,” the Delhi High Court has held.

It thus quashed an FIR registered on allegations of a woman throwing acid on her sister-in-law, observing that the substance thrown was not found to be ‘acid’ and the allegation appeared to be motivated by an ongoing property dispute between the parties.

Respondent herein had alleged that the petitioner (her sister-in-law) had thrown a hot liquid at her, which fell on her right shoulder, blouse and saree.

"If indeed the liquid that was thrown on the respondent no.2 by the petitioner was ‘acid’, then the respondent no.2 would have suffered external injuries and traces of the acid would have been found on her body," Justice Amit Bansal said.

The petitioner had filed for quashing of FIR, stating that she and respondent resided in a common property. It was urged that the FIR was respondent's attempt to harass, as there was an ongoing property dispute between them. It was pointed out that prior to the alleged incident, two complaints had been made against respondent by occupants of the property.

Respondent on the other hand contended that there was no property dispute and the police were deficient in their investigation.

An FSL report was brought to the notice of the court, as per which samples of liquid substance collected from floor and tiles of the property were found to be of Hydrochloric acid. Taking note, the court said, there was nothing to show that the substance was thrown at respondent’s body.

The court further considered that as per the discharge summary, there was no external injury found on respondent at the time of admission in hospital. Moreover, in the PCR Form, it was recorded that the doctor attending respondent had stated that there was no sign of acid, and it was a case of old illness.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors and Iqbal v. State of U.P., Justice Bansal said:

“The High Court can go beyond the averments made in the FIR/complaint and ‘read between the lines’ to examine if the ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are made out or not. In order to achieve this, the High Court can take into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the material collected in the course of investigation. Of course, while exercising the aforesaid powers, the High Court must exercise due caution, care and circumspection.”

With respect to criminal intimidation, the court remarked that there was no allegation in the FIR to substantiate the offence.

Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Mr. Kshitij Mittal, Mr. Anshul Mittal, Mr. Harshit Vashisht and Mr. Sarthak Sharma, Advocates appeared for petitioner

Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC (Crl.) with Mr. Alok Sharma, Mr. S.K. Sharma and Mr. Rohan Kumar, Advocates appeared for respondents

Case Title: Rashmee Kansal v. The State and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1105

Click Here To Read/Download Order