Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 690

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Mohammad Wajid & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2340 of 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 10656 of 2022)
Decided on : 08-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohd. Zahid Hussain, AOR Ms. Jemtiben Ao, Adv. Ms. Mumtaz Javed Shaikh, Adv. Ms. Aarushi Singh, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Thaker, Adv. Mr. Prastut Dalvi, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Garima Prasad, AAG, Sr. Adv. Mr. Brijendra Chahar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Ashish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Prateek Rai, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Shashank Gusain, Adv. Mr. Shubham Saxena, Adv. Mr. Akash, Adv. Mrs. Shweta Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shyam Sundar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Prateek Rai, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to intentional insult within meaning of Section 504, IPC.
(2) Provisions of any criminal statute are to be construed and interpreted strictly.
(3) In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, Court owes duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from record of case over and above averments and with due care and circumspection try to read in between lines.
(4) Delay in registration of FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing of FIR.
(5) Criminal antecedents of accused cannot be sole consideration to decline to quash criminal proceedings.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 395, 504, 506 and 323 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Dacoity, insult, criminal intimidation and hurt – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Three ingredients mentioned in Section 390, IPC, must always be satisfied before theft can amount to robbery – Ordinarily, if violence or hurt is caused at the time of theft, it would be reasonable to infer that violence or hurt was caused for facilitating commission of theft – But there may be something in evidence to indicate that hurt or violence was caused not for this purpose but for a different purpose – None of ingredients to constitute offence of dacoity are disclosed – It is ordinary general nature of abusive language that is test for considering whether abusive language is an intentional insult – Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to intentional insult within meaning of Section 504, IPC – Before offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that accused had intention to cause alarm to complainant – Entire case put up by first informant on face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated – There is no reference to any date or time of incident in FIR – Allegations are too vague and general – In absence of all incriminating materials merely on the basis of vague and general allegations levelled in FIR, accused cannot be put to trial – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 15, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33 and 36)
(B) Interpretation of Statute – Rule of Strict Construction – Provisions of any criminal statute are to be construed and interpreted strictly – When it is said that all penal statutes are to be construed strictly, it only means that Court must see that thing charged is an offence within plain meaning of words used and must not strain the words. (Paras 18, 19, 20 and 21)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of Constitution need not restrict itself only to stage of a case but is empowered to take into account overall circumstances leading to initiation/registration of case as well as materials collected in course of investigation – In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, Court owes duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from record of case over and above averments and with due care and circumspection try to read in between lines – In case on hand, multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time – Registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged. (Para 30)
(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 – FIR – FIR in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating oral evidence adduced at trial – Object of insisting upon lodging of FIR to police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding circumstances in which crime was committed, names of actual culprits and part played by them as well as names of eye witnesses present at scene of occurrence – Delay in registration of FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing of FIR – However, delay with other attending circumstances emerging from record of case rendering entire case put up by prosecution inherently improbable, may at times become a good ground to quash FIR and consequential proceedings. (Paras 32 and 33)
(E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Criminal antecedents of accused cannot be sole consideration to decline to quash criminal proceedings – Accused has legitimate right to say before Court that howsoever bad his antecedents may be, still if FIR fails to disclose commission of any offence or his case falls within one of parameters as laid down by Supreme Court in case of Bhajan Lal [AIR 1992 SC 604], then Court should not decline to quash criminal case only on the ground that accused is a history sheeter – Initiation of prosecution has adverse and harsh consequences for the persons named as accused – Requirement and need to balance law enforcement power and protection of citizens from injustice and harassment must be maintained – State owes a duty to ensure that no crime goes unpunished but at same time it also owes a duty to ensure that none of its subjects are unnecessarily harassed. (Para 34)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal is at the instance of the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively of FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 395, 504, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 17.10.2022 in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 15174 of 2022 by which High Court rejected Writ Petition filed by appellants herein thereby declining to quash FIR.
Findings of Court:
Observations made in this judgment are relevant only for the purpose of the FIR in question and the consequential criminal proceedings. None of observations shall have any bearing on any of pending criminal prosecutions or any other proceedings.
Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Understood. Please provide the legal document content within tags (replacing {content}), and I'll analyze it to generate key points with individual references (e.g., (!) (!) ).

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is at the instance of the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 resply of the First Information Report (FIR) being the Crime Registration No. 224 of 2022 dated 19.09.2022 registered with the Mirzapur Police Station, District Saharanpur, State of U.P. for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 504, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 17.10.2022 in the Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 15174 of 2022 by which the High Court rejected the Writ Petition filed by appellants herein thereby declining to quash the aforesaid FIR.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The respondent No. 4 herein namely Ram Kumar lodged FIR No. 224 of 2022 for the offences enumerated above at the police station also referred to above. The FIR reads thus:-

They started using abusive language against us. We requested them to stop uttering abusive language. It is at that time all these persons assaulted us with their hands and fists for a long time. It is thereafter they on a point of pistol put on my forehead, they took away Rs. 2 lakh kept in my pocket forcefully.

(Emphasis supplied)

4. Thus the FIR as aforestated reveals that the first informant is a resident of village Kasimpur, Mirzapur, District Saharanpur. His name has been recorded as a tenure holder of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 256/1 situated at village Mayapur, District Saharanpur. He has alleged that the appellants herein alongwith few other co-accused have been putting forward wrong claim of being the owners of the land bearing Khasra No. 256/1. It is his case that sometime in the year 2021, he along with his brother namely Rajkumar had visited the house of the appellant No. 2 herein situated at Mirzapur to request him not to interfere with their lawful possession and ownership of the land in question. It is his case that at that point of time the appellants herein and other co-accused hurled abuses to the first informant and his brother Rajkumar and all the accused thereafter assaulted the first informant and his brother with hands and fists. It is further alleged that at that point of time the accused persons on the point of a gun forcibly took away Rs. 2 Lakh from the pocket of the first informant. The accused persons are also alleged to have threatened the first informant that if he would tal