Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 5198

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Vikas Lakra – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
Cr.M.C. 2047 of 2021 & Cr.M.A. 13786 of 2021
Decided On : 04-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Satish Kumar, APP, for the State with SI Manoj, P.S. Mundka.

Quashing of FIR should be an exception and rarity, and the court cannot inquire into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the FIR.

Headnote:
FIR Quashing - Robbery - IPC 392/34 - Sections 392/34 of IPC
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and an associate overpowered him, robbed money and a mobile phone, and were subsequently apprehended by the police.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's defense of alibi was under suspicion, and the matter had to be tested during the trial. The court also noted that the petitioner's acquittal in a previous case was due to compounding of the offense, and the recovery of the mobile phone from the petitioner's possession was not disputed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of robbery, the petitioner's defense of alibi, and the previous acquittal in a similar case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure, emphasizing that quashing of FIR should be an exception and rarity, and that the court cannot embark upon an inquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the FIR.
Final Decision: The petition for quashing of FIR was dismissed, with the court clarifying that all contentions and defense raised can be presented before the Trial Court for appropriate consideration.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C') read with Article 227 of Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR bearing No. 586/2020 registered at Police Station Mundka (Outer District), New Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC').

2. Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on 21.12.2020, on the complaint of one Mr. Ram Chander, who had stated that he was a labourer and that on 21.12.2020 at about 3.30 pm, he had gone to jungle side near Mundka Depot to attend nature's call and when he was coming back, two young boys including the petitioner herein had come and overpowered him. The petitioner had grabbed the neck of complainant and had robbed Rs.600/- from his pocket while the other had robbed his Nokia Mobile phone. After commission of offence, both the boys had run in different directions. The petitioner had run towards the main Rohtak road who was chased by the complainant and the complainant had met two constables of Highway patrolling team of P.S. Mundka, who had also joined the chase. Subsequently, the petitioner was apprehended and brought to the police station where investigating officer recorded the statement of complainant. The robbed money of Rs. 600/- of complainant as well as two mobile phones, reported stolen vide two different FIRs i.e. 59/2020 dated 24.02.2020 and 286/2020 dated 28.10.2020 both registered at P.S. Mundka, were also recovered from the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested and after completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that at the time of commission of alleged offence as mentioned in the complaint, the petitioner was present in his office and, thus, he could not have committed the offence in question. In this regard, reliance is placed on the attendance register of the petitioner in the record of MCD, Keshav Puram Zone, showing his attendance on the day of incident. It is also stated by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has been acquitted in case FIR bearing no. 59/2020. It is also stated that the allegations levelled are baseless and motivated and there is no likelihood or probability that the offence could have been committed by the petitioner. It is, therefore, stated that FIR be quashed since the local police, in connivance with the complainant, has registered a false FIR against the present petitioner and no recovery was effected from him.

4. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, argues that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner in the FIR in question and that two stolen mobile phones were recovered from the possession of petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner was not acquitted in the case FIR no. 59/2020 due to his innocent/false implication, but on account of the fact that the complainant therein was not intending to pursue the matter as his mobile phone had been recovered and the same was recorded in the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It is also stated that the grounds raised in the present petition are a matter of trial and the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage.

5. This Court has heard arguments on behalf of both the parties and has perused the material on record.

6. Since the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him, it is pertinent to refer to the principles that govern quashing of FIRs.

7. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, the Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down the principles to be considered while quashing FIRs. The same are reproduced as under for reference:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions rel