Full Text
Translation output
i^ s0#$- HIGH COURT OF DELHI w.P.(cRL) r392l20rr
BABITA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Xdr. M.M. Singh and Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocates.
VETSUS
STATE & ANR ..... ResPondents
Through: Ms. Satsheel Sheokand, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Additional
Standing Counsel with ASI Ram Rattan.
.CORAM:
HON'BLE.MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER o/o 12.1'0.2011 Crl.
M.A. No. 120L712011 (Exemption)
.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P. (Crl.) No. L3921201L By this petition the Petitioners seek quashing of FIR on the ground that the FIR No. 2491201,0 under Sections 323134|1506134IPC registered at
PS Kanjhaurala is a false and motivated FIR. According to the Petitioners soon after the incident they also got a complaint filed on the basis of which
FIR No. 25012010 was registered. Learned counsel for the Petitioners state that they are entitled to quashing of the FIR on the ground that it has been malafidely lodged. In support of his contention he relies upon grounds (M) and (N) to urge that since the Petitioners have already got a stay in their w.P.(cRL) 1s92/2011 Page I of 3
2011:DHC:18267 faveur on the entire properfy from this Hon'ble Court, there was no occasiQn to them to fight. Since there was no occasion to fight they had not quarreled with the complainant and thus FIR had been malafidely lodged. It is further stated that though the FIR was registered on 31't December,2010, on 10th January, 20lI the Petitioners gave a complaint to the SHO, PS Kanjhawala stating that this FIR was false and malafide giving the exact sequence of events.
The Petitioners are seeking quashing of the FIR on the grounds of malafide. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhaian
Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.
In the present case the only ground alleged is since the stay was in favour of the Petitioners, there is no reason to attack. In my opinion this ground itself does not prove that a false case was registered malafidely
BABITA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Xdr. M.M. Singh and Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocates.
VETSUS
STATE & ANR ..... ResPondents
Through: Ms. Satsheel Sheokand, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Additional
Standing Counsel with ASI Ram Rattan.
.CORAM:
HON'BLE.MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER o/o 12.1'0.2011 Crl.
M.A. No. 120L712011 (Exemption)
.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P. (Crl.) No. L3921201L By this petition the Petitioners seek quashing of FIR on the ground that the FIR No. 2491201,0 under Sections 323134|1506134IPC registered at
PS Kanjhaurala is a false and motivated FIR. According to the Petitioners soon after the incident they also got a complaint filed on the basis of which
FIR No. 25012010 was registered. Learned counsel for the Petitioners state that they are entitled to quashing of the FIR on the ground that it has been malafidely lodged. In support of his contention he relies upon grounds (M) and (N) to urge that since the Petitioners have already got a stay in their w.P.(cRL) 1s92/2011 Page I of 3
2011:DHC:18267 faveur on the entire properfy from this Hon'ble Court, there was no occasiQn to them to fight. Since there was no occasion to fight they had not quarreled with the complainant and thus FIR had been malafidely lodged. It is further stated that though the FIR was registered on 31't December,2010, on 10th January, 20lI the Petitioners gave a complaint to the SHO, PS Kanjhawala stating that this FIR was false and malafide giving the exact sequence of events.
The Petitioners are seeking quashing of the FIR on the grounds of malafide. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhaian
Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.
In the present case the only ground alleged is since the stay was in favour of the Petitioners, there is no reason to attack. In my opinion this ground itself does not prove that a false case was registered malafidely
W.P.(CRL) 1392/2011 entailing in quashing of the FIR
I find no good reason at this stage to quash the FIR when the other side has also received injuries and the fact that who is stating truth has to be adjudicated during trial when the witnesses will be examined and cross exarnined.
Petition is disrnissed.
Whr?- 'MUKTA GUPTA, J.
,' OCTOBER 12, Z0llfvn' w.P.(cRL) 13e2/2011 i:
I find no good reason at this stage to quash the FIR when the other side has also received injuries and the fact that who is stating truth has to be adjudicated during trial when the witnesses will be examined and cross exarnined.
Petition is disrnissed.
Whr?- 'MUKTA GUPTA, J.
,' OCTOBER 12, Z0llfvn' w.P.(cRL) 13e2/2011 i:
JUDGMENT