Point of Law: In exceptional cases, to prevent abuse of process of Court, High Court might in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 quash criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR bearing no. 240/2020, registered at Police Station Patparganj Industrial Area, East District, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 341/186/353/332/342/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

2. The present FIR was registered on 08.09.2020, on the statement of Head Constable (HC) Sukander Pal of Delhi Police i.e. complainant/respondent no. 8. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 08.09.2020, complainant along-with ASI Udaiveer Singh and Constable Kulwant was on duty and was regulating traffic at Gazipur paper market. It is alleged that at about 9:15 AM, a bus bearing registration number UP61AT2998 was stopped by the complainant along-with the above-mentioned staff as its driver was operating the bus without uniform. During checking of the bus, when the complainant asked the driver for his Driving Licence and documents related to the bus, the driver did not produce any document nor his driving licence despite asking. Thereafter, the bus was seized by the complainant vide Challan no. 20206200908093242 under Sections 66(1)/192A, 66(1)/192A, 3/181, 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the ASI ordered the complainant to deposit the seized vehicle at “Traffic Pit” in Vivek Vihar, Delhi. It is alleged that when complainant along-with the seized vehicle/bus was going towards Vivek Vihar, Delhi one Swift Car bearing no. DL1ZD0837 stopped the complainant’s way by overtaking the bus. Thereafter two persons came out of the car and one of them disclosed his name as Devender Shukla i.e., petitioner herein and started threatening the complainant as being the owner of the said bus. When complainant told him that he was performing his duty, the petitioner started beating the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant was sent for medical examination and after his discharge from hospital, FIR in question was registered against the petitioner.

3. During investigation, co-accused Kalamuddin was arrested on 09.09.2020 and sent to Judicial Custody but petitioner was evading arrest continuously and therefore, on 10.09.2020, Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) were issued against the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner had surrendered before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 25.09.2020. On 03.10.2020, petitioner was released on regular bail by learned ASJ, Karkardooma Court, Delhi vide order dated 03.10.2020.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case whereas he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. It is further stated that as per FIR in question the complainant was on duty, but at the time of alleged offence, he was in civil dress and did not show his ID card despite being asked by the petitioner. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the traffic police was trying to extort money from the petitioner, and on failing to get money, the FIR in question was registered against the petitioner. It is further averred that the matter was initially settled between the parties, but the present FIR was then registered by the police malafidely.

5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioner, in view of which the FIR in question should not be quashed. Learned APP further states that apart from the present case, petitioner is previously involved in two cases, details of which are as under:

a. Case FIR No. 227/2003, registered at Police Station NDLS (Railways), under Section 407 of IPC.

b. Case FIR No. 372/2016, registered at Police Station Kashmeri Gate, Delhi, under Sections 308/452/34 of IPC.

6. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and have gone through the material on record.

7. The issue before this Court is that whether the FIR should be quashed on the ground that complainant had tried to extort money from the petitioner an