Vikas Lakra v. The State

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C’) read with Article 227 of Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR bearing No. 586/2020 registered at Police Station Mundka (Outer District), New Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

2. Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on 21.12.2020, on the complaint of one Mr. Ram Chander, who had stated that he was a labourer and that on 21.12.2020 at about 3.30 pm, he had gone to jungle side near Mundka Depot to attend nature’s call and when he was coming back, two young boys including the petitioner herein had come and overpowered him. The petitioner had grabbed the neck of complainant and had robbed Rs.600/- from his pocket while the other had robbed his Nokia Mobile phone. After commission of offence, both the boys had run in different directions. The petitioner had run towards the main Rohtak road who was chased by the complainant and the complainant had met two constables of Highway patrolling team of P.S. Mundka, who had also joined the chase. Subsequently, the petitioner was apprehended and brought to the police station where investigating officer recorded the statement of complainant. The robbed money of Rs. 600/- of complainant as well as two mobile phones, reported stolen vide two different FIRs i.e. 59/2020 dated 24.02.2020 and 286/2020 dated 28.10.2020 both registered at P.S. Mundka, were also recovered from the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that at the time of commission of alleged offence as mentioned in the complaint, the petitioner was present in his office and, thus, he could not have committed the offence in question. In this regard, reliance is placed on the attendance register of the petitioner in the record of MCD, Keshav Puram Zone, showing his attendance on the day of incident. It is also stated by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has been acquitted in case FIR bearing no. 59/2020. It is also stated that the allegations levelled are baseless and motivated and there is no likelihood or probability that the offence could have been committed by the petitioner. It is, therefore, stated that FIR be quashed since the local police, in connivance with the complainant, has registered a false FIR against the present petitioner and no recovery was effected from him.

4. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, argues that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner in the FIR in question and that two stolen mobile phones were recovered from the possession of petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner was not acquitted in the case FIR no. 59/2020 due to his innocent/false implication, but on account of the fact that the complainant therein was not intending to pursue the matter as his mobile phone had been recovered and the same was recorded in the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It is also stated that the grounds raised in the present petition are a matter of trial and the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage.

5. This Court has heard arguments on behalf of both the parties and has perused the material on record.

6. Since the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him, it is pertinent to refer to the principles that govern quashing of FIRs.

7. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, the Hon’ble Apex Court had laid down the principles to be considered while quashing FIRs. The same are reproduced as under for reference:

decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary 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 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.