Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by special leave against the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissing a petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing FIR No. 590 of 2019. The FIR was lodged by respondent No. 5, Barkat Ali, alleging that the appellant and co-accused trespassed into his land, demolished a boundary wall, damaged an under-construction house of Sushma Kashyap, stole construction materials, and threatened him. The incident was alleged to have occurred sometime prior to 20th May 2019, but the FIR was filed on 29th June 2019, a delay of over 39 days with no explanation. The site inspection memo prepared by the Investigating Officer showed no damage to the complainant's boundary wall, though some damage to Sushma Kashyap's house was noted. Notably, Sushma Kashyap did not lodge any complaint. The Court observed that the FIR lacked specific date and time, the delay was unexplained, and the ingredients of Section 294 IPC were not made out. The Court held that the FIR appeared to be a counterblast to an earlier FIR filed by the appellant and was a tool to wreak vengeance. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Abuse of Process - FIR lodged after 39 days without explanation, complainant unsure of date of incident, and site plan showing no damage to complainant's property - Held that such FIR is liable to be quashed as it is a tool to wreak vengeance (Paras 14-17).
B) Indian Penal Code - Ingredients of Offence - Section 294 IPC - Obscene Acts - Allegations in FIR do not disclose any obscene act or song - Held that offence under Section 294 IPC is ex facie not made out (Para 15).
C) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Non-cognizable Offences - Offences under Sections 427, 294, 506 IPC are non-cognizable except Section 447 IPC - Held that FIR lacking specific allegations for non-cognizable offences is liable to be quashed (Para 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR and charge sheet under Sections 447, 427, 294, 506 read with Section 34 IPC should be quashed due to vague allegations, unexplained delay, and lack of ingredients of the offences.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. FIR No. 590 of 2019 and all subsequent proceedings quashed and set aside. Pending applications disposed of.
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR
- Abuse of process of law
- Ingredients of Section 294 IPC
- Delay in lodging FIR
- Vague allegations
- Site inspection contradicting FIR
Case Details
2024 LawText (SC) (5) 154
Criminal Appeal No. 0000 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 10611 of 2023)
Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti
State of Chhattisgarh and Another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against order of High Court dismissing petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing FIR and charge sheet.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought quashing of FIR No. 590 of 2019 and charge sheet for offences under Sections 447, 427, 294, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
Filing Reason
Appellant alleged that FIR was false, fabricated, vague, delayed, and lacked ingredients of offences; also claimed it was a counterblast to his own FIR.
Previous Decisions
High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1675 of 2023 on 2nd August, 2023, refusing to quash FIR and charge sheet.
Issues
Whether the FIR and charge sheet should be quashed due to vague allegations and unexplained delay of 39 days.
Whether the ingredients of offences under Sections 447, 427, 294, 506 IPC are made out from the FIR and charge sheet.
Whether the FIR is an abuse of process of law and a tool to wreak vengeance.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that FIR is false and fabricated; site inspection showed no damage to complainant's boundary wall; Sushma Kashyap did not lodge any complaint; delay of 39 days unexplained; ingredients of offences not made out; FIR is a counterblast to appellant's own FIR.
State argued that complainant had no motive to falsely implicate; investigation recorded statements affirming allegations; no case for interference made out.
Ratio Decidendi
An FIR that is vague, lacks specific date of incident, is filed after unexplained delay, and is contradicted by site inspection, does not disclose ingredients of alleged offences and amounts to abuse of process of law, warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC and Article 142 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
A bare perusal of the impugned FIR would reveal that the same was lodged by complainant-Barkat Ali on 29th June, 2019 with the allegation that the offences alleged were committed by the appellant and co-accused some time prior to 20th May, 2019. Thus, the complainant was not even sure of the date on which the alleged offences were committed.
On going through the contents of the FIR, we do not find any material therein which can justify invocation of the offence punishable under Section 294 IPC.
The FIR which was lodged after 39 days of the incident, does not indicate the date or time, when the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant and caused damage to his property and committed the other offences for which the FIR came to be registered. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned FIR seems to be nothing but a tool to wreak vengeance against the appellant herein.
Procedural History
FIR No. 590 of 2019 registered on 29th June 2019 at P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur for offences under Sections 447, 427, 294, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Charge sheet filed. Appellant and co-accused filed WPCR No. 10 of 2020 which was withdrawn. Then filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1675 of 2023 under Section 482 CrPC before Chhattisgarh High Court, dismissed on 2nd August 2023. Appeal by special leave to Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 447, 427, 294, 506, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
- Constitution of India: 142
