JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)

Petitioner by way of instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No. 45 dated 15.02.2021, registered for offences punishable under Sections 195-A and 120-B of IPC, 1860 (Sections 180, 506 and 34 of IPC, 1860 added later on) at Police Stations Sadar Gohana, District Sonepat.

2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact the dispute between the parties relates to family business. Owing to the family business dispute, the complainant got petitioner booked in 06 more FIRs.

3. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that bare perusal of the FIR shows that allegations against the petitioner are that complainant got to know that petitioner is going to hatch a conspiracy to murder him and his family. The aforesaid bald statement made by complainant is not enough to prosecute the petitioner. The allegations being totally discrepant and without any basis, the instant FIR which is nothing but an abuses of process of law needs to be quashed.

4. State counsel as well as respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the quashing of FIR as the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the records of the case.

6. At this stage, it would be important to peruse Section 195-A of IPC which reads as under:-

7. A bare reading of the above provision shows that there should be an actual threat of injury to person, reputation or property with an intention to cause that person to give false evidence. Bare reading of Section 195-A of the Code indicates that in order to constitute offence punishable under the same, it is necessary to show that an individual is threatened with an injury to his person, reputation or property and that such threats are being administered with an intent to cause that person to give false evidence.

8. Supreme Court in the case of Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. State of U.P. and others, reported as 2023(3) Law Herald (SC) 1889, held as under:-

9. In the present case, the complainant had mere apprehension of harm/murder and in no manner is relatable to offences falling within the ambit of Section 195-A of IPC or its defining clause contained in Section 191 IPC. Later part of Section 195-A makes it clear that false evidence means false evidence before the court of law.

10. Principles w.r.t. exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis quashing of FIR and to criminal proceedings stand well culled out in State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported as 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 wherein Apex Court held as under :-

11. In view of the ratio of law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) and applying the same to the facts of the present case, it is evident that in the absence of necessary allegations to constitute culpable offence, the case of the petitioner would fall within category 2 as carved out by the Apex Court.

12. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 45 dated 15.02.2021, registered for offences punishable under Sections 195-A and 120-B of IPC, 1860 (Sections 180, 506 and 34 of IPC, 1860 added later on) at Police Stations Sadar Gohana, District Sonepat and all proceedings arising therefrom are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioner.