Devender Shukla v. State of NCT

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR bearing no. 240/2020, registered at Police Station Patparganj Industrial Area, East District, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 341/186/353/332/342/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

2. The present FIR was registered on 08.09.2020, on the statement of Head Constable (HC) Sukander Pal of Delhi Police i.e. complainant/respondent no. 8. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 08.09.2020, complainant along-with ASI Udaiveer Singh and Constable Kulwant was on duty and was regulating traffic at Gazipur paper market. It is alleged that at about 9:15 AM, a bus bearing registration number UP61AT2998 was stopped by the complainant along-with the above-mentioned staff as its driver was operating the bus without uniform. During checking of the bus, when the complainant asked the driver for his Driving Licence and documents related to the bus, the driver did not produce any document nor his driving licence despite asking. Thereafter, the bus was seized by the complainant vide Challan no. 20206200908093242 under Sections 66(1)/192A, 66(1)/192A, 3/181, 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the ASI ordered the complainant to deposit the seized vehicle at “Traffic Pit” in Vivek Vihar, Delhi. It is alleged that when complainant along-with the seized vehicle/bus was going towards Vivek Vihar, Delhi one Swift Car bearing no. DL1ZD0837 stopped the complainant’s way by overtaking the bus. Thereafter two persons came out of the car and one of them disclosed his name as Devender Shukla i.e., petitioner herein and started threatening the complainant as being the owner of the said bus. When complainant told him that he was performing his duty, the petitioner started beating the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant was sent for medical examination and after his discharge from hospital, FIR in question was registered against the petitioner.

3. During investigation, co-accused Kalamuddin was arrested on 09.09.2020 and sent to Judicial Custody but petitioner was evading arrest continuously and therefore, on 10.09.2020, Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) were issued against the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner had surrendered before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 25.09.2020. On 03.10.2020, petitioner was released on regular bail by learned ASJ, Karkardooma Court, Delhi vide order dated 03.10.2020.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case whereas he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. It is further stated that as per FIR in question the complainant was on duty, but at the time of alleged offence, he was in civil dress and did not show his ID card despite being asked by the petitioner. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the traffic police was trying to extort money from the petitioner, and on failing to get money, the FIR in question was registered against the petitioner. It is further averred that the matter was initially settled between the parties, but the present FIR was then registered by the police malafidely.

5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioner, in view of which the FIR in question should not be quashed. Learned APP further states that apart from the present case, petitioner is previously involved in two cases, details of which are as under: a. Case FIR No. 227/2003, registered at Police Station NDLS (Railways), under Section 407 of IPC. b. Case FIR No. 372/2016, registered at Police Station Kashmeri Gate, Delhi, under Sections 308/452/34 of IPC.

6. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and have gone through the material on record.

7. The issue before this Court is that whether the FIR should be quashed on the ground that complainant had tried to extort money from the petitioner and since money was not paid by the petitioner, the FIR in question was registered and the FIR being false on face of it, is liable to be quashed.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, listed certain categories of cases wherein power of quashing an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised. The same read as under: “102....(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 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 FIR 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. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

9. The Court, however, is required to exercise utmost restraint while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The same has been expressed by the Apex Court in the decision of Bhajan Lal (supra) as under:

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315 held that while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and does not required to consider it on merits whether the allegations make out cognizable offence.

11. In Ramveer Upadhyay and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 484, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the well-settled law on the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as under:

32. As held by this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gourieshetty Mahesh (2010) 11 SCC 226, the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry into whether the evidence is reliable or not or whether there is reasonable possibility that the accusation would not be sustained.