Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ayyub Babu Shaikh, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No.84/2018 registered at Sangamner City Police Station, Ahmednagar, for offences under Sections 354A, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The FIR was lodged by a 16-year-old minor girl (respondent No.2) against one Sajid Rashid Baig and his maternal uncle, the petitioner. The allegations in the FIR primarily pertained to Sajid, who had been harassing the informant for eight months, including an incident on 04.03.2018 where he entered her house and hugged her. The petitioner was implicated only because he accompanied Sajid and others to the informant's house on 07.03.2018, after the matter was reported to Sajid's grandparents. The FIR did not attribute any specific act to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the FIR was vague and did not disclose any offence against him, and that continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process. The State and respondent No.2 opposed the petition, but the court found that the allegations against the petitioner were insufficient to constitute any offence. The court noted that the FIR only mentioned the petitioner's presence and did not specify any overt act. Relying on the principle that criminal proceedings cannot be continued based on vague allegations, the court quashed the FIR against the petitioner. The court held that the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law and allowed the petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Lack of Specific Allegations - The High Court quashed the FIR against the petitioner, who was the maternal uncle of the main accused, as the FIR contained no specific allegations against him and only mentioned his presence at the scene. Held that continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process of law (Paras 1-10). B) Indian Penal Code - Sexual Harassment - Section 354A IPC - Misjoinder of Charges - The FIR alleged offences under Section 354A IPC against the main accused, but the petitioner was not named in any specific overt act. The court found that the allegations against the petitioner were vague and did not constitute any offence under the sections invoked (Paras 2-10). C) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Offences under POCSO - Section 8 POCSO - Lack of Specific Allegations - The FIR invoked Section 8 of POCSO, but the allegations against the petitioner did not disclose any sexual assault. The court held that the petitioner could not be prosecuted based on vague allegations (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who is the maternal uncle of the main accused, can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the allegations against him are vague and do not disclose any specific offence.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. FIR No.84/2018 registered with Sangamner City Police Station, Ahmednagar, and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner are quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR
- Section 482 CrPC
- Lack of specific allegations
- Misjoinder of charges
- POCSO Act
- Section 354A IPC
- Section 506 IPC
- Section 504 IPC
