The court held that FIRs under stringent statutes like the SC&ST Act must be based on substantiated claims; unfounded allegations leading to abuse of process may be quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

The order of mine shall dispose of the above titled petitions, which have been filed, under the provisions of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS ’), with a prayer to quash FIR No. 124 of 2024, dated 21^st September, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Section 3(1)(p) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC&ST Act’), with Police Station Sadar, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any.

2. Petitioners, in both the petitions, are senior police officers, in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the FIR in question has been lodged, on the complaint of respondent No. 4-Meena Negi, which has been addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as well as, to the Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Shimla.

4. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 5 is the husband of respondent No. 4, who has been charge-sheeted by the Department, for misconduct and departmental inquiry was initiated against him. The said inquiry was initiated on the ground that he had made five different complaints, against the senior officers of the police force, without any substance and following the proper chain of command.

5. Thereafter, as per the case of the petitioners, inquiry was conducted and respondent No. 5 was punished with compulsory retirement, vide order, dated 9^th July, 2020. The appeal against the said order was rejected by the Appellate Authority, on 20^th August, 2020. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 filed a Civil Writ Petition, challenging the said order of the Appellate Authority. The said writ petition, however, was dismissed as withdrawn on 13^th October, 2020. Subsequently, he has filed Revision Petition, before the second Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 has filed CWP No. 1311 of 2021, which is still pending adjudication.

6. It is the further case of the petitioners that the FIR in question is clear abuse of the process of law, as, the same has been lodged by respondents No. 4 and 5, with ulterior motive to wreak vengeance against the petitioners and to tarnish their image.

7. It has been averred by the petitioners that the bare perusal of the FIR does not make out any offence and moreover, respondent No. 5 has been punished with compulsory retirement, after following due process of law and complying with the mandate of the Rules.

8. According to the petitioners, the FIR in question has been lodged after a gap of about four years, from the alleged cause of action, if any. In this regard, the petitioners have referred to the date, when the punishment of compulsory retirement was awarded to respondent No.5.

9. The petitioners have also pleaded that the punishment, which has been awarded to respondent No. 5, has nothing to do with his community, as, the said punishment was awarded to respondent No. 5, on account of his professional misconduct.

10. Petitioner No. 2, in CrMMO No. 999 of 2024, has pleaded that he, at the relevant time, was posted as Superintendent of Police, Estate and Welfare at Police Headquarters, Shimla. According to him, the eviction notices were issued against respondent No. 5 to vacate the Government accommodation, in discharge of his official duties and there was no criminal intent to issue these