Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(J&K) 686

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAHUL BHARTI, J.
Ajay Partap – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K & Ors. – Respondent
CRM(M) No. 232/2022 & CrlM No. 1037/2022
Decided on : 28-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Abhinav Sharma; Abhimanyu Sharma
For the Respondent: Sumeet Bhatia

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that police investigations must be conducted with diligence and integrity, and that FIRs based on absurd or malicious allegations can be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Headnote:
POLICE INVESTIGATION - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Cr.P.C. 1973, Section 482; IPC 1860, Sections 366, 506; Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 - The court discussed the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR when allegations are absurd or malicious. It emphasized the importance of proper police investigation, referencing the Indian Evidence Act's definitions of 'Fact in Issue' and 'Relevant Fact' to highlight the need for thorough and truthful investigations. The court found the investigation in this case to be shoddy and lacking in substance, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
Fact of the Case:
An FIR was registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 366 and 506 IPC based on a complaint by Kajal Devi, who alleged coercion in signing a marriage agreement. The petitioner contended that the FIR was filed under parental pressure after a consensual marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the FIR and subsequent investigation to be fundamentally flawed, lacking credible evidence of the alleged offences. It noted that the investigation was superficial and did not substantiate the claims made in the FIR.
Issues: Whether the FIR was based on credible allegations and whether the investigation conducted was adequate and lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an FIR can be quashed if the allegations are inherently improbable or if the investigation is conducted in a manner that is shoddy and fails to adhere to legal standards. The court emphasized the need for police investigations to be thorough and based on factual evidence.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and the investigation, stating that both were an abuse of the process of law.

JUDGMENT :

RAHUL BHARTI, J.

1. The power of investigation without knowing the province of investigation is the bane of police investigation proving to be failure in bringing home successful prosecution of criminal cases in the courts of law. The present case presents the exact scenario rendering the very FIR and the so called investigation there under exposed to serious challenge.

2. Of the seven enlisted grounds by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of “State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others” reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 for exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of Cr. P.C., 1973 relatable to an FIR generated investigation of a criminal case, grounds figuring at serial number 5 & 7 are:-

“(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

3. The facts of the present case fall squarely within the catch of the said two grounds which renders the FIR in the present case attended with the so-called investigation there under liable to be questioned and quashed.

4. The operative facts of the case are that an FIR No. 0023/2022, dated 17.03.2022 came to be registered by the complainant-respondent 2 herein, by personally visiting the Police Station Majalta, district Udhampur for registering the complaint against the petitioner. The contents of the complaint are produced herein to self state the event in the context whereof the FIR was getting registered by the respondent 2 against the petitioner:-

“Today one complainant namely Kajal Devi D/o Jagdish Chand R/o Battal, tehsil Majalta alongwith her father given a written application in English language against Ajay Partap @ Kalu S/o Om Bhadur R/o Kakrai tehsil Majalta district the contents of application is as. To The Station House Officer, Police Station Majalta. Subject:- An application of KAJAL DEVI D/o Sh. JAGDISH CHAND, R/o village Battal, tehsil Majalta, district Udhampur with a request to take action against one AJAY PARTAP ALIAS KALU S/o Sh. OM BHADUR R/o village Kakrai, tehsil Majalta, district Udhampur who has taken signature on Marriage Agreement fraudulently by forcing the applicant to sign on document under coercion and threats and without any consent. Sir, the complainant/applicant most humbly and respectfully submitted as under: 1. That the complainant/applicant is permanent resident of above noted address and presently undergoing GNM Training at Narsingh Dev College near Nand Palace Udhampur. 2. That one Ajay Partap who is stranger and made intimacy with the applicant making repeated approached on one pretext of the other. Even the said accused could manage approaching to frauds of the applicant. 3. That it is on 21.10.2021 while the aforesaid applicant was at her house and started her journey to attend the college at Udhampur the said accused with some unknown people along with one lady stopped vehicle and asked to applicant to board in the vehicle with protest that aforesaid applicant will be dropped at Udhampur on the way to her college as the vehicle is being drawn to Udhampur only. But the suppress the said accused have forcibly taken to the applicant to some unknown place and forced her to sign the document by giving threats of killing in case the aforesaid applicant fails to do so. Also the said accused have given threats of killing in case she tells this thing to anyone else. 4. That it is submitted that so far aforesaid applicant has not made any physical contact with the said accused. Moreover, the said document “Marriage Agreement” is unregistered document has not valid in the eyes of law and has liable to b