Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Ashish Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State & Anr. – Respondents
Cr.M.C. 268 of 2020 & Cr.M.A. 1142 of 2020
Decided On : 04-09-2023
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - IPC 354A/354B/323/34 - The court discussed the allegations of outraging modesty, physical assault, and theft, and the subsequent legal proceedings. The court found that there were sufficient grounds to frame charges against the petitioner under Sections 354A/354B/356/379 of IPC. The court also emphasized that the discrepancies in the complainant's case and the defense raised by the accused could be appreciated at the stage of trial.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the petitioner and his father verbally abused and physically assaulted her and her mother, and the petitioner inappropriately touched her and snatched her gold chain. The complaint was filed four days after the incident, and the accused argued that it was a counter-blast to a complaint filed by the petitioner against the complainant's mother and others for theft and misuse of cheques.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were sufficient grounds to frame charges against the petitioner under Sections 354A/354B/356/379 of IPC. The court emphasized that the discrepancies in the complainant's case and the defense raised by the accused could be appreciated at the stage of trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the veracity of the complainant's allegations, the timing of the complaint, and the alleged counter-blast nature of the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the discrepancies in the complainant's case and the defense raised by the accused could be appreciated at the stage of trial. The court also highlighted that the existence of other disputes between the parties could not be the ground to conclude that the present case was instituted with malice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and clarified that the judgment did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of complaint no. 379/1/2014 dated 22.07.2014 under Section 354A/354B/323/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom including the summoning order dated 01.12.2015 under Section 354A/354B/356/379 of IPC and order on point of charge dated 01.10.2019 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Magistrate').
2. Factual background of the present case is that the respondent no. 2 i.e. complainant had lodged a complaint vide DD No. 68B with the Police Station Rajouri Garden on 18.07.2014, addressed to the SHO, regarding an alleged offence which had taken place on 01.12.2013 at B-83, Tagore Garden, New Delhi. It was alleged that on 01.12.2013about 7:30 A.M., the complainant with her mother had gone to the said premises where the accused persons namely Ashish Gupta i.e. the petitioner and his father i.e. Om Saran Gupta had verbally abused the complainant and they had also started physically man-handling the complainant and her mother. It was alleged that petitioner had touched the chest of the complainant and had also touched her body inappropriately and had also snatched gold chain of the complainant. It was further alleged that he had also torn the shirt which the complainant was wearing. It was stated that after this incident, she had immediately made a call on 100 number and had given a complaint to the police officials but no action had been taken on her complaint. It was thus requested that an FIR be registered under Sections 354A/354B/323/341/34 of IPC. A copy of the complaint was also forwarded to the Commissioner of Police.
3. Aggrieved by the non-registration of FIR by the police, four days thereafter, the complainant had filed the present complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate seeking registration of FIR in respect of the alleged acts committed on 01.12.2013 by the accused persons. The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 23.07.2014 had directed the concerned SHO to file Action Taken Report (ATR).
4. The ATR in the present case was filed on 06.08.2014 by the concerned SHO. After perusing the contents of ATR and hearing the arguments on behalf of complainant, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 13.08.2014 had observed that no investigation was required to be conducted by the police and the complainant may prove her case by leading evidence in the Court. Accordingly, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed, and the matter was put up for recording pre-summoning evidence. The relevant portion of order dated 13.08.2014 is reproduced as under:
"...In the present case, it is alleged by the complainant that on 01.12.2013, her step father and step brother had outraged her modesty and also snatched her chain when she along with her mother had gone to B-83, Tagore Garden, Delhi. The offences are alleged under Section 354A/354B/323/341 read with Section 34 IPC. As per status report, brother of the complainant and alleged accused person no.1 Om Saran Gupta got married each other and they got separated due to differences. On 01.12.2013, DD No.20A qua quarrel was received at the PS but the same was filed as matter was compromised between mother of the complainant and the accused persons.
From the nature of the allegations, I am of the opinion that no investigation is required by the police and complainant may prove his case by leading evidence in the court. In this regard, reliance can be place on the case of Subhkaran Luharuka Vs. State & Anr., in Crl. M.C. No. 6122-23/2005 which was decided by our own High Court wherein it has been observed that......
Keeping in view the nature of allegationsand the aforesaid established position of law, the application U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is dismissed..."
5. On 10.03.2015, the pre-summon
The court emphasized that discrepancies in the complainant's case and the defense raised by the accused could be appreciated at the stage of trial, and the existence of other disputes between the par....
The court emphasized that a Magistrate must demonstrate satisfaction regarding grounds for proceeding against accused before issuing summons, and quashing of proceedings should be an exception.
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, and the court cannot interfere with the investigation process unless there are exceptional circums....
The court emphasized the necessity of conducting a preliminary inquiry before proceeding with an FIR to prevent abuse of legal process in cases with potential ulterior motives.
The court ruled that a subsequent complaint based on previously resolved allegations constitutes an abuse of process, justifying its quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances when a prima facie case is not made out against the accused. The court also highlighted the principles that g....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that serious allegations, such as those involving extortion and physical assault, cannot be quashed based on a settlement agreement at the initial ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
