The court emphasized that an FIR lodged with an oblique motive and in a malicious manner, as an act of vengeance, is liable to be quashed.

JUDGMENT

MANISH PITALE, J. - The applicants have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.P.C.") for quashing of the First Information Report ("FIR") dated 10th September, 2020 registered against them, bearing Crime No.114 of 2020 at Police Station Dongri, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 509, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC"). Respondent No.2 is the original complainant. The complaint lodged by respondent No.2, leading to registration of the FIR, pertains to an alleged incident that took place on 13th August, 2020. It is an admitted position that the complaint of respondent No.2 was recorded by the police on 10 th September, 2020.

2. The applicants contended that the husband of respondent No.2 was working as their employee in a shop dealing in the business of ladies accessories and that there was a dispute between the applicants and the husband of respondent No.2. The applicants claimed that the husband of respondent No.2 had caused loss to their business by indulging in misappropriation and dealing directly with the clients of the applicants. It was their case that when they confronted the husband of respondent No.2 on 13 th August, 2020 in respect of the said dispute, there was an exchange of words between the applicants and the husband of respondent No.2. This had resulted in registration of two non-cognizable complaints with the police.

3. At the behest of the applicants and on the basis of the written complaint submitted by them on 18th August, 2020, on the same date, a non-cognizable offence was registered against the husband of respondent No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. A copy of the said registration of non-cognizable offence bearing No.580 of 2020 was annexed to the present application. It was further the case of the applicants that even the husband of respondent No.2 had approached the police with regard to the said incident and at his behest also, a non-cognizable complaint was registered against the applicants for certain offences. According to the applicants, they had also approached the concerned authorities under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by submitting an application dated 28th September, 2020 for details and copies of such complaints pertaining to non-cognizable offences registered against them at the behest of the husband of respondent No.2. It was submitted that the requisite information was not provided to them. It is in this backdrop that the applicants claimed that respondent No.2, as an after thought, approached the police on 10th September, 2020 to claim that the applicants on the said date i.e. on 13th August, 2020 had not only abused and manhandled her husband, but they had abused and also assaulted her in a manner that required registration of offences punishable under Sections 354, 509, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

4. The applicants have approached this Court, claiming that such registration of FIR on the basis of a complaint, which was not only belated but was a clear after thought, was not justified and that the FIR deserved to be quashed.

5. Mr.Gaud, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, submitted that when non-cognizable offences stood already registered against the applicants at the behest of husband of respondent No.2 for the incident that occurred on 13 th August, 2020, registration of FIR after about 28 days for the same incident at the behest of respondent No.2, was not justified. It was clearly an after thought and an act of vengeance on the part of respondent No.2 and her husband, which the police failed to take into account. It was submitted that registration of the FIR for the very same incident, when the cross complaints pertaining to non-cognizable offences stood already registered, violated the mandate of Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that su