The court emphasized that if the FIR discloses commission of offences, generally no interference is warranted unless there are compelling circumstances to do so, and cited the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to illustrate the circumstances under which the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code may be exercised.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. The challenge in this petition is made to an FIR No. 451 of 2023 (Case Crime No. 703 of 2023), dated 17.07.2023, under Sections 147, 149, 332, 353, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 51(a) of The Disaster Management Act, 2005, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR on 16.07.2023, the informant, who is the respondent no. 3, had gone for some rescue work at 11:30 late in the evening. According to the FIR, he was abused and assaulted, due to which, he sustained injuries, he was also threatened to life. The FIR records that, in fact, the petitioner, who is a local councillor and some of his friends had sit on the Astha Light and Pump set, which were taken at the place to drain the water and they obstructed the informant in discharging of his duties, who works as a Kanoongo (“a Revenue Officer”).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there no medical evidence on record as alleged in the FIR; the FIR was lodged under the political pressure; the police has been threatening the petitioner to send him behind the bars; the informant and the police are hand in gloves and are determined to send the petitioner to jail.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a councillor; there is no occasion to commit such offence; there were some verbal clash, but no offence as stated in the FIR had ever been committed by the petitioner.

6. It is also argued that the petitioner has never been given any notice under Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”); one of the co-accused had been given a notice, who is cooperating in the investigation now, he is on bail given by the court below.

7. It is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing an FIR. If FIR discloses commission of offences, generally no interference is warranted unless there are compelling circumstances to do so.

8. The scope under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is much wide, but also guided by the separate principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in umpteen number of cases. The jurisdiction is exercised to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order passed by the court or to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

9. In the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has illustrated the list of the circumstances under which the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code may be exercised. In paragraph 102 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an o