Criminal charges must be substantiated by clear evidence; mere disputes over property management cannot justify FIRs, especially if motivated by personal grievances.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

In this writ petition the petitioner has made the following prayers:

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) /order(s) and or direction(s), particularly a writ of certiorari for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with FIR being Bariatu PS Case No. 115 of 2024 dated 03.04.2024 registered for offence punishable under sections 341, 342, 406, 409, 420, 448, 354, 504, 506, 509 and 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE pending in the learned Court of Sri Shivraj Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

2. It is the case of the informant that the petitioner along with other persons entered into the house of the informant while installation of AC work was being done. The informant’s husband was not at home and she was with her two children, mother and sister. They started howling and threatening the informant that without their permission nothing could be done in the society. They abused the informant and also assaulted the mechanic who was carrying out the installation work of the AC. It has been further alleged that the flat owners are afraid due to the dominance and political connections of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false and malafide, only to harass him. Learned counsel further submitted that the informant entered into an agreement for sale with the petitioner for a residential apartment with two car parking space in the basement. The agreement for sale clearly stated that any modification or alteration in the property was not permitted without the permission of the developer. Pursuant to the agreement for sale, sale deed bearing no. 1338 dated 19.02.2020 was also executed, which mentioned that the purchaser would not do anything in the flat that might cause nuisance or inconvenience to other occupiers of the said apartment. The husband of the informant is the Deputy Superintendent of Police and had misused his power and position to send threatening messages to the petitioner. The petitioner had only requested the informant to re-route the copper and electric wire of the AC unit as it was intersecting the gas pipeline of the society. Further no complaint against the petitioner’s conduct was made by other flat owners. He further submitted that none of the offences under the alleged penal sections under the F.I.R. are made out against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel representing the State and the informant submitted that the petitioner had entered the house of the informant and used filthy language, threatened her and also damaged the copper pipe fitted in AC causing a loss of Rs. 75,000/-. It is further submitted that the case was initially investigated by the District Police but on 25.04.2024 the investigation was taken over by the State CID which registered CID P.S. Case No. 10 of 2024. The Investigating Officer of CID visited the house of informant and was shown photographs of pipeline and wiring of AC that were destroyed by the accused persons and also shown the illegal penthouse constructed on the terrace of the building by the petitioner. All the witnesses have supported the prosecution story and stated that the petitioner is a powerful person and has political links.

5. The First Information Report (FIR) has been registered under sections 341, 342, 406, 409, 420, 448, 354, 504, 506, 509 and 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The law in respect of quashing of the FIR is well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others ” re