Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an Assistant Commissioner of Police in the CCB, filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR No.64/2020 registered against him under Section 384 read with Section 34 IPC. The FIR was based on the statement of Respondent No.3, Adil Azeez, a cigarette distributor, who alleged that he paid Rs.62.5 lakhs through one Babu Rajendra Prasad to the petitioner to avoid police action against illegal cigarette circulation during lockdown. The petitioner contended that the complaint was false and malafide, made as a counter-blast by an accused in another case under investigation by the petitioner. The primary legal issues raised were whether the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence under Section 384 IPC and whether the registration violated Section 154 Cr.P.C. The petitioner relied on Lalita Kumari and Bhajan Lal to argue that the FIR should be quashed as it was an abuse of process. The court heard the matter and reserved orders; the final decision is not available in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Registration of FIR - Mandatory disclosure of cognizable offence under Section 154 Cr.P.C. - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 154 - The petitioner contended that the FIR was registered without any material disclosing a cognizable offence under Section 384 IPC, as the complaint lacked essential ingredients; reliance placed on Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1. The court examined the requirement. (Paras 10-14)
B) Criminal Law - Extortion - Ingredients of Section 384 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 384 - The petitioner argued that the statement of Respondent No.3 did not show intentional putting in fear or dishonest inducement to deliver property; thus, no prima facie case of extortion was made out. The court considered the argument. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR in Crime No.64/2020 should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for not disclosing a cognizable offence under Section 384 IPC and being registered malafide.
Law Points
- For registration of FIR
- the complaint must disclose a cognizable offence
- Section 154 Cr.P.C. mandates registration only if cognizable offence is disclosed
- offence of extortion under Section 384 IPC requires intentional putting in fear and dishonest inducement
- court should quash FIR if complaint suffers from malafide or is abuse of process.
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (09) 32
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2389/2020
A.S. Ponnanna, Senior Counsel for Leela P. Devadiga (Petitioner); V.M. Sheelvant, SPP-I (Respondents 1&2); Ravi B. Naik, Senior Counsel for Vijetha R. Naik (Respondent 3)
State of Karnataka, Deputy Commissioner of Police Crime-II, Sri Adil Azeez
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR and all proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR dated 12.05.2020 in Crime No.64/2020 and the complaint dated 07.05.2020, and all further proceedings.
Filing Reason
Petitioner contends that the FIR was registered based on a false statement, without any material disclosing a cognizable offence under Section 384 IPC, and that it is a malafide counter-blast to an investigation against Respondent No.3.
Issues
Whether the FIR should be quashed because the complaint does not disclose a cognizable offence under Section 384 IPC.
Whether the registration of FIR was malafide and an abuse of process of law.
Whether there was violation of Section 154 Cr.P.C. in registering the FIR.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the complaint is fabricated and the statement of Respondent No.3 is a counter-blast to an ongoing investigation, lacking ingredients of Section 384 IPC.
Petitioner contended that the FIR was registered without application of mind and in violation of Section 154 Cr.P.C., as no cognizable offence was disclosed.
Petitioner relied on Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana to assert that the FIR should be quashed for being malafide and an abuse of process.
Judgment Excerpts
a strange story was concocted, claiming that certain moneys had been paid by the said Adil Azeez to this petitioner
the complaint and the FIR registered against this petitioner suffer from malafides, is a gross abuse of process of law
if no such material discloses any cognizable offence, FIR cannot be registered
Procedural History
FIR registered on 12.05.2020 by Cottonpet Police Station based on complaint dated 07.05.2020. Petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.2389/2020 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before High Court of Karnataka. Matter heard and reserved for orders on 30.07.2021, order pronounced on 08.09.2021.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 384, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482, 154
