IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S.Sonak, R.N.Laddha, JJ.
Surya Prakash Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State Of Goa – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 61 of 2022
Decided On : 13-07-2022
FIR Quashing - Allegations under Ss. 353 and 506 IPC - [Sec. 353, Sec. 506 IPC] - The court analyzed the allegations made in the FIR and concluded that the essential ingredients of the offences for which the petitioner was charged were not made out. The court referred to legal provisions and previous cases to support its decision to quash the FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the quashing of the FIR registered against him at Calangute Police Station, alleging that the ingredients of Ss. 353 and 506 of the IPC were not satisfied based on the allegations made in the complaint. The complainant, a Police Sub Inspector, accused the petitioner of threatening him while performing his lawful duties during a lockdown. The petitioner denied the allegations and offered an apology and donations to the Goa Police Welfare Society.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the essential ingredients of the offences under Ss. 353 and 506 IPC were not made out based on the allegations in the complaint. The court also accepted the petitioner's apology and donations as a show of bonafide intentions.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the allegations in the complaint constituted offences under Ss. 353 and 506 IPC, and whether the petitioner's apology and donations should be considered in the decision to quash the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles from previous cases to determine that the essential ingredients of the offences were not present in the allegations. The court also considered the petitioner's apology and donations as additional factors in quashing the FIR.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned FIR No.51/2020 registered at the Calangute Police Station, without any order for costs.
JUDGMENT
R.N.LADDHA, J. - Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the petitioner seeks the quashing of the F.I.R. No.51/2020, dtd. 27/3/2020, registered against him at Calangute Police Station, at the instance of the respondent No.3, on the ground that the ingredients of Ss. 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) are not at all satisfied on the basis of the allegations made in the said complaint.
3. The complainant Vishal Mandrekar, Police Sub-Inspector attached to Calangute Police Station, the respondent No.3 herein, lodged a report against the petitioner at the said Police Station on 27/3/2020, which is reproduced verbatim as below:-
" Shri Vishal J. Mandrekar, Police Sub Inspector, Calangute Police Station, Dated:- 27/03/2020. To, The Police Inspector, Calangute Police Station, Calangute-Goa. Sub:- Complaint against Mr. Sunny Pandey @ Surya S/o Krishnakant Pandey for threatening me while performing my lawful duties. Sir, I, Shri Vishal J. Mandrekar, Police Sub Inspector attached to Calangute Police Station, do hereby lodge my complaint against Mr. Sunny Pandey @ Surya S/o Krishnakant Pandey, as under: To-day i.e. on 27/03/2020 I was deployed for Nakabandi duty at Dolphin Circle, Naikavaddo, Calangute between 14.00 hours to 22.00 hours along with staff comprising (1) PC-5456, Pandurang Samant, (2) PC-7301 Ratnakar Mandrekar both of Calangute Police Station and ASI Anil Talekar of Traffic Cell, Calangute in view of Health Emergency, "Total India Lock Down" declared by the Government of India in view of COVID-19.
While we were performing our Nakabandi duty, at 17.10 hours one red colour Mercedes car bearing registration No. GA-03-Y-9753 driven by one male person came at the Nakabandi point from Calangute side and was trying to proceed towards Saligao. We had erected barricades on the road and said car was stopped by the staff in order to enquire as to where he is going. I asked the driver as to where he is going. Driver questioned me saying in Hindi language, "Age kya hai voh dikhyi nahi deta? likha hai vo pado" (Can't you see what is in front? Read what is written*). I told him to talk politely wherein he replied saying, "Vishal mai janta hu tum koun hai our tum nahi jante mai koun hu" (Vishal, I know who you are and you do not know who I am*). I asked him as to who is he. He replied me saying, "Tumhare PI se pucho, mai koun hu, phone karo tumhare PI ko, mai dhayisou policewalonko khana deta hu, mera naam Sunny Pandey hai" (Ask your P.I. as to who I am, phone your P.I., I feed 250 police personnel, my name is Sunny Pandey*). I again told him to talk politely when he threatened me saying, "Tumne mujhe rok ke bahut badi galti ki, abi tumko dikhata hu, mai kya karta hu" (You made a great blunder by obstructing my way, I will show you just now what I will do*). I asked him as to whether he is threatening me, when he replied, "Ha" (Yes*) and he left the place with his car saying that he is going to the Police Station.
After about 10 minutes or so, said Sunny Pandey returned to the Nakabandi Point with his car and stopped himself and said, "Mai kal hi C.M. se meeting karke aya hu" (I have returned after attending a meeting with C.M only yesterday*). Subsequently, PI Calangute appeared at the spot when said Mr. Sunny Pandey talked to PI Calangute and left the place with his car. It is learnt that the name of Mr. Sunny Pandey is Surya S/o Krishnakant Pandey native of Faridabad, U.P. and presently staying at Candolim Goa and it is also learnt that he is having his criminal record at Calangute Police Station and criminal cases are pending against him in the Court of Law. I say that Mr. Sunny Pandey @ Surya S/o Krishnakant Pandey is a dangerous person and he has threatened
The court emphasized that the essential ingredients of the offences must be present in the allegations to proceed with a criminal case, and the court may consider additional factors such as apology a....
The court established that allegations in the FIR did not constitute extortion or criminal intimidation, emphasizing the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences.
The court emphasized that a criminal prosecution cannot be quashed by High Court unless it is shown that allegations and the material available on record do not constitute an offence against the accu....
The court emphasized the necessity for clear, prima facie evidence of direct involvement in criminal acts for proceeding with charges against the accused.
Allegations must meet specific legal criteria to support criminal charges; vague claims under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC should lead to quashing of FIR and proceedings.
The court quashed the FIR for lacking material evidence against the petitioner, emphasizing that criminal proceedings cannot continue without sufficient allegations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.