IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash FIRs only in cases where the allegations do not constitute an offence, and that the FIR is not the definitive account of the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.01.2021 whereby and where under cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 323/337/ 504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners and further to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No. 44 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 100 of 2021.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 10.03.2020, which was the day of Holi, at about 4:30 P.M., the petitioners along with five unknown persons reached the house of the informant and abused him. After protest by the informant and his family members, the accused persons assaulted them, caused hurt to them and thereafter, the accused persons went to their roofs and from the roofs also they threw stones and bricks. One of the family member of the informant namely Sonu Keshari got injured in the said occurrence. Though there is allegation of snatching gold chain and damaging the vehicle of the informant but during the investigation of the case, sufficient materials could not be collected by police to support the contention of the informant.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the story narrated in the F.I.R. is totally false and fabricated and this case is a counter-blast to Telaiya P.S. Case No. 43 of 2020 filed by the petitioner no.1. It is next submitted that the father of the petitioners namely Jagdish Prasad Swarnkar filed Telaiya P.S. Case No. 238 of 2014 in the year 2014 against the informant of this case and his family members and this malicious prosecution has been initiated by the complainant to hide the malafide act of him and his family and to create pressure upon the petitioners to withdraw the said case. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 has filed Telaiya P.S. Case No. 43 of 2020 wherein he has alleged that on 10.03.2020, the informant and his family members along with five unknown persons were the members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the assembly entered the house of the petitioners and abused the petitioners and their family members. Police did not immediately register F.I.R. On 12.03.2020 and 13.03.2020, application was given to the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Commissioner about the occurrence and the information of non-lodging of the F.I.R. and finally on 19.03.2020, the F.I.R. was registered. It is then submitted that Sonu Keshari who is stated to be the person having sustained injury in the medical report has not been cited as a witness in the charge sheet. It is then submitted that the informant in order to take revenge from the petitioners, initiated this malicious prosecution, hence the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Mohammad Wajid & Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, in Criminal Appeal No. 2340 of 2023 decided on 08.08.2023, reported in (2023) 5 Supreme 601, para -33 of which reads as under:-

“33. In the aforesaid context, we may clarify that delay in the registration of the FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing of the FIR. However, delay with other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case rendering the entire case put up by the prosecution inherently improbable, may at times become a good ground to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings. If the FIR, like the one in the case on hand, is lodged after a period of more than one year without disclosing the date and time of the alleged incident and further without any plausible and convincing explanation for such delay, then how is the accused expected to defend himself in the trial. It is altogether different to say that in a given case, in th