The court established that trivial allegations lacking substantial corroboration do not justify criminal proceedings, warranting quashing of FIR and charges framed against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) essentially seeking quashing of FIR No. 478/2015 dated 28.11.2015, registered at Police Station Sector 23 Dwarka, for offences under Sections 354/509/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The petitioner has also challenged the order and 14.07.2016, passed by the learned Trial Court, in the proceedings emanating from the aforesaid FIR, to the extent that charges were framed against him for offences under Sections 341/509/352 of the IPC. By the same order the petitioner was discharged for the offences 506 IPC and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act, 1960.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3.1. On 28.11.2015, FIR no. 478/2015 was registered for offences under Sections 354/509/506 of the IPC at the instance of Respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner, who is her neighbour, had threatened her and also subjected her to severe harassment during the course of past two years. Two and a half years prior to the registration of the FIR, Respondent No. 2 had become the owner of a pet Abyssinian breed cat named Chiku, and she started going to the terrace of her apartment building for exercising in early morning. It is alleged that the petitioner, who owns two flats on the top floor, started objecting to the morning walks of Respondent No.2 and accused her of not closing the water taps properly. It is alleged that the petitioner also complained to Respondent No.2 that her pet cat eats grass and plants on the terrace and dirties the same. Respondent No.2 further alleged that on one occasion, the petitioner had physically tried to obstruct her passage on the terrace a few months ago and threatened to inflict severe physical harm on her and her cat if she came on the terrace. The Petitioner allegedly lunged at Respondent No.2’s cat and hit her with a stick as well during the altercation. Respondent No. 2 gave a written complaint to the Building Management 26.10.2015, however, no action was taken.

3.2. It is alleged that on the morning of 21.11.2015, Respondent no. 2 took her cat to the terrace for a morning walk, and the pet slept under a cooler which was on the portion of terrace which is over the petitioner’s flats. However, when Respondent no. 2 went to get her pet back from the terrace, she was shocked to not find it there. The petitioner was allegedly present on the terrace with a yoga instructor at that time. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 searched frantically for her missing cat. Meanwhile, the petitioner allegedly subjected Respondent No.2 to mental harassment by instigating other neighbours to pick up fights with Respondent No.2 and her parents. It is alleged that the petitioner also allegedly threatened Respondent No.2 that if she ever used the terrace or made any complaints against him, she would also disappear like her cat. The cat was eventually found in a mud ditch near Pochanpur village, even though, the cat had never gone out of the building without Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 alleged that she felt scared for her safety as well as for her parents and cat due to the alleged violent behaviour of the petitioner.

3.3. On 02.12.2015, the statement of Respondent no.2 was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC where she furnished additional details about the alleged incident and alleged that three months back, the petitioner had threatened her of dire consequences if he ever saw