Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 3725

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Ramez Faqiri – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
Cr.M.C. 2388 of 2023 and Cr.M.A. 9073 of 2023 (stay)
Decided On : 18-09-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Siddharth Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chirayu Jain, Mr.Vishwajeet Singh and Mr.Vinayak Chitale, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr.Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for State.
Mr.Parth Goswami, Advocate for R-2 and R-3.

The main legal point established is the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC if they are manifestly frivolous or vexatious, and if instituted with an ulterior motive.

Headnote:
Quashing of Proceedings - Indian Penal Code - 354/509 - Code of Criminal Procedure - 482 - Summary
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR, charge sheet, and consequential proceedings based on allegations of physical abuse and molestation. The petitioner, an Afghan refugee, was accused by the respondent no.2 of theft, forgery, and misbehavior, and subsequently of molestation. The petitioner argued that the allegations were false and filed with an ulterior motive.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the subsequent complaint substantially improved the allegations made in the first complaint, indicating a mala fide filing. It noted the absence of evidence and delay in filing the second complaint, and concluded that the criminal proceedings were a misuse of the court process and should be quashed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the changing nature of allegations, absence of evidence, and the mala fide filing of the complaints.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Iqbal v. State of U.P., emphasizing the power to quash proceedings if manifestly frivolous or vexatious. It considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and exercised due caution and circumspection.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the FIR, charge sheet, and consequential proceedings, deeming them a misuse of the court process.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of:

(i) FIR No.261/2021 dated 10th September, 2021, under Sections 354/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at Police Station Greater Kailash;

(ii) Charge sheet dated 2nd December, 2021 and;

(iii) Consequential proceedings pending before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South East, Saket District Court, New Delhi.

2. The aforesaid FIR was registered on 10th September, 2021, based on the complaint of the respondent no.2 (complainant) that the petitioner had physically abused/molested her and the respondent no.3 on 13th July, 2021. Subsequently, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner on 2nd December, 2021, under Sections 354/509 of the IPC.

3. Notice in the present petition was issued by the predecessor bench on 11th April, 2023. Vide order dated 21st August, 2023, passed by this Court, an early hearing application filed on behalf of the petitioner was allowed and the Trial Court was requested to pass an order on charge.

4. On 4th September, 2023, an order on charge was passed by the learned Trial Court wherein it was stated that on a prima facie view, the offences under Sections 354/509 of the IPC are made out against the petitioner and therefore, a trial was necessitated. However, noting that no investigation has been done qua the allegations of forgery, cheating and criminal breach of trust, the police was asked to explain the investigation done and the delay in filing of the charge sheet. Consequently, the matter was posted for framing of charge on 24th November, 2023.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an Afghan refugee and was working as a receptionist in the clinic of the respondent no.2, who is a gastroenterologist. The petitioner's role was to get Afghan nationals as patients for the doctor, as he was an Afghan refugee himself.

6. A written complaint was given by the respondent no.2 to the police on 13th July, 2021, in which the respondent no.2 accused the petitioner of theft, forgery and misbehaviour.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner left the employment of the respondent no.2 and joined another gastroenterologist at his clinic in Panchseel Park.

8. When the respondent no.2 came to know about the petitioner joining a competitor, she made another complaint dated 10th September, 2021, where she made allegations of the petitioner having molested her and the dietician working with her, the respondent no.3.

9. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made the following submissions:

I. The present petition is frivolous and vexatious and has been filed by the respondent no.2 in order to harass the petitioner for joining a competitor and has been given colour of a sexual offence.

II. A perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent no.2 on 13th July, 2021 and the subsequent complaint filed on 10th September, 2021, would show that the respondent no.2 has materially changed the nature of the allegations against the petitioner. While the earlier complaint was filed alleging forgery and theft, the subsequent complaint was filed alleging molestation.

III. The clinic of the respondent no.2, where the petitioner was employed, had comprehensive CCTV coverage, with 14 cameras deployed to cover every part of the clinic. If the petitioner had indeed molested the respondent no.2 or the respondent no.3, it would have been captured by the CCTV coverage. Despite the CCTV footage being in the possession of the respondent no.2, she did not make any attempt to share the same with the police and neither has the police sought the same.

IV. This Court has the power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to quash the present proceedings for being false and an abuse of the process of law. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Iqbal v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 949 and Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293.

10. Per