The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to exercise inherent power to quash an FIR sparingly and with caution, and to prevent the abuse of legal provisions and secure the ends of justice.

ORDER

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of FIR No. 89/2021 dated 07.02.2021 registered at PS Jahangir Puri under Sections 354A/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC").

2. The facts, in brief, leading up to this petition are as follows:

a) It is stated that in December 2016, the Petitioner, who is an Assistant Professor at the University of Delhi, had gone to his hometown with his family, and during this time, the cemented water tank that had been constructed for his flat on the rooftop, was demolished by one Mrs. Meena Kumar/Respondent No.2. The Respondent No. 2 subsequently constructed a room and toilet, and in the process, broke the pipe that would be used to supply water from the water tank to the Petitioner's flat. When the Petitioner returned, he was shocked to see that there was no water and when he objected to the illegality of the constructions, Respondent No.2 and her family assured the Petitioner that they would reconstruct it. However, they failed to do so and the Petitioner installed a plastic water tank with his own money.

b) It is stated that the Petitioner's wife suffers from multiple ailments and that the illegal construction is posing a serious threat to her life as it is blocking ventilation. The Petitioner's wife has made several requests as well as wrote multiple letters to the DDA authorities regarding the illegal construction instituted by Respondent No.2 and her family. Multiple representations were also given to the police authorities, however, neither the DDA nor the police acted upon these complaints. It is stated that the laxity on the part of these authorities was due to the fact that Respondent No.2's daughter-in-law was a Constable with the Delhi Police.

c) It is stated that as a consequence of the complaints, Respondent No.2 and her son, namely Jatin, abused and threatened the Petitioner's wife along with the entire family with dire consequences. Thereafter, the Petitioner's wife lodged a criminal complaint dated 19.01.2017 at PS Jahangir Puri against Respondent No.2, Jatin and the daughter-in-law. However, no FIR was registered despite the disclosure of a cognizable offence. It is stated that Jatin again molested the Petitioner's wife as a result of which she called up the police. However, due to police pressure, the Petitioner's wife was forced to compromise with Jatin and the latter submitted an apology letter dated 27.07.2018.

d) It is stated that an RTI dated 12.01.2017 filed by the Petitioner's wife to enquire about the details regarding the action taken by DDA against the illegal constructions revealed that DDA claimed to have information about them. Accordingly, the Petitioner's wife filed a Civil Suit vide Suit No. 826/2017 dated 23.10.2020 seeking demolition of the illegal construction with Respondent No.2 being made party to that suit as Respondent No. 8 therein.

e) It is stated that on 26.10.2020, the Petitioner was attacked by one Mohan Singh who allegedly conspired with Respondent No.2 who had apparently assured him that no action would be taken by the police against him on account of her daughter-in-law working with Delhi Police. The Petitioner thereafter filed a complaint at PS Jahangir Puri and the police register a non-cognizable report dated 28.10.20202 under Sections 323/506 IPC. However, no FIR was registered. It is stated that on 21.11.2020, infuriated by the filing of the civil suit, Jatin started abusing the Petitioner's wife and threatened her with dire consequences, and as a result, the Petitioner's wife submitted a written complaint dated 21.11.2020 at PS Jahangir Puri. Yet again, no FIR was registered.

f) It is stated that in response to the written complaint, the police called the Petitioner and pressurized the Petitioner and his wife to compromise the matter. On their refusal to do so, it is stated that Respondent No.2 in collusion