The court emphasizes the necessity for clear essential ingredients in an FIR for criminal proceedings to proceed, supporting quashing under Section 482 of the CrPC.

ORAL ORDER

Though served, none remained present for the respondent No.2.

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.II - 286 of 2018 registered with Rander Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 herein had borrowed Rs 10,00,000/- from the petitioner herein and the petitioner was asking for the return of the said amount. It is alleged that on 24.02.2018 when the complainant met the petitioner at about three in the afternoon at SMS quarter, he again demanded the amount and thereafter the petitioner abused him and gave kick and fist blow therefore, the impugned FIR is filed.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that on bare reading of the FIR, there is no case whatsoever has been made out so far as the petitioner is concerned as it is alleged in the FIR on the broad day light at about 3 petitioner abused the complainant and gave kick and fist blow near SMC quarter. He would further submit that it is thickly populated area and it cannot be believed that in the presence of many people such offence can take place. He would further submit that impugned FIR is filed only because of the fact that the amount which was borrowed by complainant from the petitioner, he does not want to return it. He would further submit that the respondent No.2 is the history sheeter and there are 11 cases pending against him. He would further submit that essential ingredients of sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC thus are missing against the petitioner. Upon such submission, he prays to allow the petition.

4. Learned APP prays to pass necessary orders.

5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

6. Perusing the contents of the FIR, what could be noticed that respondent no.2 herein had borrowed Rs 10,00,000/- from the petitioner herein and the petitioner was asking for the return of the said amount. That on 24.02.2018 when the complainant met the petitioner at about three in the afternoon at SMS quarter, he again demanded the amount and it is alleged that thereafter the petitioner abused him and gave kick and fist blow. Looking to the FIR on the face of it, essential ingredients of sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC thus are missing against the petitioner and it seems that the FIR is filed to with a view to pressurize the petitioner by not demanding the money from the respondent No.2, which he has lent to the respondent No.2. Thus, allowing the FIR to proceed further against the petitioner is a futile exercise.

7. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon’ble Apex Court summed up the proposition of law, which reads as under:-

“(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 ins the F.I.R. and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the code.

(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same donot disclose the commission of any offence and make out the case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegatio