Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 482—Inherent powers of High Court—Invocation—In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines—Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.
[Para 30]
Section 482—Quashing of FIR—Ground—Delay in registration of FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing of the FIR—However, delay with other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case rendering the entire case put up by the prosecution inherently improbable, may at times become a good ground to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings—If the FIR, like the one in the case on hand, is lodged after a period of more than one year without disclosing the date and time of the alleged incident and further without any plausible and convincing explanation for such delay, then how is the accused expected to defend himself in the trial—Merely on the basis of vague and general allegations levelled in the FIR, the accused cannot be put to trial.
[Para 33]
Section 482—Quashing of FIR—Ground—Criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings—An accused has a legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever bad his antecedents may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose commission of any offence or his case falls within one of the parameters as laid down by this Court in the case of 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, then the Court should not decline to quash the criminal case only on the ground that the accused is a history sheeter—Initiation of prosecution has adverse and harsh consequences for the persons named as accused—Requirement and need to balance the law enforcement power and protection of citizens from injustice and harassment must be maintained.
[Para 34]
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 395, 504, 506 & 323—Offence of dacoity and criminal intimidation—Quashing of FIR declined by High Court—Appeal—Prosecution has blindfoldedly and without understanding the true purport of the offence of “dacoity” registered the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC and proceeded to even prepare charge-sheet for the offence of dacoity—None of ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity are disclosed—Section 395 of the IPC is not applicable—Considering the nature of allegations levelled in the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not under Section 504 of the IPC—FIR lodged after a period of more than one year without disclosing date and time of alleged incident and further without any plausible and convincing explanation for such delay—Entire case put up by the first informant on the face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated—FIR quashed as prayed for—Appeal allowed.
[Paras 17, 18, 29 & 35]
Section 504—Proof of offence—Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace—Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant.
[Para 26]
Section 506—Criminal intimidation—Proof—Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant.
[Para 27]
Statutes
Interpretation—When it is said that all penal statutes are to be construed strictly, it only means that the court must see that the thing charged is an offence within the plain meaning of the words used and must not strain the words.
[Para 21]