2023 INSC 687

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2344 OF 2023
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 3152 of 2023)

SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIM …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

J.B. PARDIWALA, J. :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is at the instance of an accused charged

with the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian

Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) in connection with the First

Information Report (FIR) No. 175 of 2022 dated 11.08.2022

registered with the Mirzapur Police Station, District

Saharanpur, State of U.P. and is directed against the order

passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by

17.10.2022 passed in the Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition

Charanjeet Kaur
Date: 2023.08.08
15:45:15 IST
Reason:

No. 13339 of 2022 filed by the appellant herein for quashing of

1
the aforesaid FIR by which the High Court rejected the Writ

Petition and thereby declined to quash the FIR referred to

above.

3. The FIR dated 11.08.2022 lodged by the respondent

No. 4 herein reads thus:-

“To, the S.H.O., Police Station Mirzapur Paul, District

Saharanpur. Respectfully submitted that the applicant
Husna wife of Irafan resident of village Mirzapur Paul
police station Mirzapur Paul, District Saharanpur had
submitted an application in Mahila thana against Iqbal
@ Bala and his associates being Case Crime No. 122/22
u/s 376D, 323, 120B, 452 IPC which is under
investigation. Due to this reason Khursheed son of
Asagar and Farooq son Mustak and Maharaj wife of
Faroq residents of Shahpur Gadda, Police Station
Mirzapur Paul, District Saharanpur are threatening me
the complainant. They told me on phone and face to face
that if you have not settled this case then you and your
family will be killed and Suleman Kabadi has shown me
pistol and told that we are companions of Iqbal @ Balla.
If there has not been any decision then should remain
ready to suffer consequences. Your are requested to take
legal action. I shall remain obliged.”

4. Thus it appears on a plain reading of the aforesaid FIR

that the victim namely Husna (respondent No.3 herein) had

earlier lodged an FIR No. 122 of 2022 for the offences

punishable under Sections 376D, 323, 120B, 354A and 452

resply of the IPC and under Sections 7 and 8 resply of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against

Haji Iqbal @ Bala (father-in-law of the appellant herein),

2
Mehmood, Javed, Alishan, Afjal and Dilshad. It is alleged that

while the investigation of the FIR No. 122 of 2022 referred to

above was going on, the accused persons namely Khurshid,

Farukh, Maharaj and Suleman had telephonically as well as in

person threatened the victim saying that they are the

associates of Iqbal alias Bala and that if she would not

withdraw the said FIR No. 122 of 2022, then she as well as her

family members would be killed.

5. The appellant herein went before the High Court by way

of filing the Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 13339 of

2022 with a prayer to quash the FIR lodged against him. The

High Court declined to quash the FIR vide the impugned order

dated 17.10.2022. The order reads thus:-

“Heard Shri Indra Bhan Yadav, learned counsel

for the petitioner, Sri Namit Srivastava for the
complainant and learned A.G.A, for the State
respondents.

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing

of the impugned FIR dated 11.08.2022 registered as
Case Crime No.175 of 2022 under Section 506 IPC Police
Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur.

Further prayer has been made not to arrest the

petitioner in the aforesaid case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the impugned FIR has been lodged on false/ vexatious/
mischievous allegations, and no offences are made out
against the petitioner.

3
 Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing
of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence.

Perusal of the impugned first information report

prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence.
The correctness of the allegations would have to be
tested on the basis of the materials collected during the
course of investigation as by insertion of notification
No.1058/79-V-1-19-1 (Ka)-20-2018 dated 6th June 2019
and therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and
others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC
335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State
of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave
to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @
Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh)
decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for
interference with the impugned first information report.

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving

it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent
court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law
and in accordance with law.

It is made clear that we have not adjudicated

the contentions raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner and the same are left open for the petitioner to
raise at an appropriate stage in an appropriate
proceeding, in accordance with law.”

6. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant

is here before this Court with the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

7. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, the learned senior counsel appearing

for the appellant herein in his written submissions has stated as

under:-

4
“a) It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner is not
named in the present FIR but subsequently during the
course of investigation he was named for the first time in
the statement of the alleged eye-witness Salman recorded
under Section 161 CRPC on 12.08.2022, who gave an
improved version of the alleged incident and on the basis
of the said statement, vide G.D. Entry No. 30 dated
12.08.2022 the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149,
195-A, 386, 504 and 506 IPC was added in the FIR No.
175/2022. It is pertinent to submit that nowhere in the FIR
has the Complainant mentioned about the presence of the
alleged eye-witness Salman at the time and place of
incident.

b) The allegations in the First Information Report are not

only absurd but also highly improbable given that there is
no mention of the date and time of incident in the FIR.
Moreover apart from omnibus allegations there is no
specific allegation against the accused persons. The
Petitioner was not present at the time and place of the
incident namely, Village Mirzapur, District Saharanpur, and
in fact the Petitioner is permanently residing in Kunjagrant,
Vikasnagar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand.

c) It is respectfully submitted that the alleged First

Information Report is absolutely false and frivolous, and on
a reading of the said FIR, the offence under Sections 147,
148, 149, 195-A, 386, 504 and 506 of IPC is clearly not
made out against the Petitioner. The entire allegation in the
FIR revolves around an earlier FIR No.122/2022 dated
21.06.2022 lodged by the Complainant against Haji Iqbal
alias Bala (Petitioner’s father-in-law) and his family
members under Sections 376, 323, 354 (A) IPC and Section
7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012. It is submitted that the Petitioner is not an
accused in the said FIR No.122/2022 and there was
therefore no question of the Petitioner having threatened the
Complainant to withdraw the said FIR No.122 of 2022.

d) That the Complainant is in a habit of making similar

baseless and false allegations against other persons and
has lodged the present FIR at the behest of the present
ruling party in the State of Uttar Pradesh to settle political
scores with the Petitioner’s father-in-law Haji Iqbal as he

5
 belongs to a rival political party and he was a Member of
Legislative Council from 2011 to 2016.

e) It is submitted that the Respondents have incorrectly

stated that the Petitioner is involved in multiple criminal
cases without mentioning the cases allegedly registered
against the Petitioner. The Petitioner is not a member of
any Gang and he is being falsely implicated in the present
case simply because he is the son-in-law of Haji Iqbal
alias Bala and also the pairokar of the family members of
Haji Iqbal alias Bala is some cases pending before the
Learned Trial Court and the Hon’ble High Court.

f) It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner has no

criminal antecedents and apart from the present FIR No.
175 of 2022 there are no other criminal cases registered
against him.

g) The allegations made in the First Information Report do

not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 195-A, 386, 504 and 506
IPC of IPC against the Petitioner and thus, the FIR is liable
to be quashed. It is pertinent to mention that even after the
charge sheet has been filed, the petition for quashing of a
FIR is well within the powers of a court of law [Please see:
ANAND KUMAR MOHATTA & ANOTHER VS. STATE
(NCT OF DELHI), DEPARTMENT OF HOME & ANOTHER
(2019) 11 SCC 706 at paragraph 14 & 16].

h) For the reasons mentioned above, the Special Leave

Petition may be allowed and the order of the Hon’ble High
Court refusing to quash the FIR No. 175 of 2022 dated
11.08.2022 be set aside.”

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE

8. Ms. Garima Prasad, the learned Additional Advocate

General appearing for the State of U.P. in her written

submissions has stated as under:-

“a) That the petitioner being the family member of the

gang and the other members of the gang are criminal
6
minded persons and indulge in anti social activities and
the petitioner is also involved in the various illegal work.

b) That initially the name of the petitioner was not in the

FIR; however, the investigating agency, during the
investigation added 147, 148, 149, 195A, 386, 504,506
IPC has been added and the name of the petitioner was
added.

c) After registration of the FIR, the investigation was

conducted by the Investigation Officer, during
investigation, number of notices under section 41A
Cr.P.C. was issued to the Petitioner but he did not give
any heed on it and not reply the notices and he did not
co-operate with the investigation to find the actual truth.
Further, it was that the Petitioner is absconding and he
is suspected to have left the country.

d) During investigation, the statement of Complainant

was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and other
material evidence was collected wherein the claim of the
complainant is proved.

e) In the above FIR/Crime No. 175/2022 U/s 147, 148,

149, 195A, 386, 504,506 IPC, registered at P.S. Mirjapur,
District Saharanpur, there are total four (4) accused
persons namely Khurshid, Farukh, Maharaj, Suleman
Kabadi. Further during the investigation,the name of the
petitioner was also added but only the petitioner come
before this Hon’ble Court to quash the said FIR.

f) The Investigation has been completed and chargesheet

is ready to file against the Petitioners but due to stay
order dated 02.01.2023 of this Hon’ble Court, the
chargesheet could not be submitted.

g) During investigation, the statement of

Complainant/Victim under section 161 Cr.P.C. was
recorded, wherein the victim has revealed that she was
pressurized to make settlement in the aforementioned
FIR No. 122 of 2022 by the Gang members of the
Petitioner No. 1 Mohd. Iqbal. Further, it was also
informed that Khurshid S/o Asgar, Farooq S/o Mutaaq,
Mehraj S/o Farooq and Suleman Kabadi S/o Khurfan
has threaten the victim and Suleman Kabadi has shown

7
 the pistol and warned that if she has not settled the
issues, she would have to face the consequences.
In view of the aforementioned factual & legal
submissions, it is most respectfully submitted that the
present special leave petition of the Petitioners is liable to
be dismissed with exemplary cost and the impugned
order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the Hon’ble High
Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13339 of 2022
is liable to be upheld.”

ANALYSIS
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and having gone through the materials on record, the

only question that falls for our consideration is whether the FIR

should be quashed so far as the appellant herein is concerned?

10. We take notice of the following facts:-

1. The appellant herein has not been named in the

FIR as one of the accused persons. There is no

allegation worth the name in the entire FIR against the

appellant herein.

2. It appears that further statement of the first

informant was recorded under Section 161 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure and in the said statement, the

name of the appellant herein surfaced.

11. The first informant in her further statement

dated 12.08.2022 stated thus:-

8
“… Yesterday morning at around 7.00 am I along with
my daughter Salia was going to Shahpur Gada to see
my brother at my mother’s house as soon as I reached
ahead of the petrol pump, then a Bolero car colour white
number unknown came and stopped next to me, the
people sitting in it lowered the glass of the car. So I
recognized that this is Suleman kabaadi. That’s why
Suleman, sitting on the front seat, got down from the car
and said that you did not understand after saying it
repeatedly. We had also explained to you that do not
complain about the decision taken by Haji Iqbal. But
after abusing you, you did not agree. Now about 10 lakh
rupees will be spent on our jail and court. What will your
father give you? Then all the people sitting in the car got
down and surrounded me. Rashid Pradhan Mahmudpur
said either withdraw the complaint now or give Rs 10
lakh. Otherwise you will definitely die. Your family will
also die with you. That’s why Aslam alias Shubha
resident of Shahpur Gada took out a pistol from his
pocket and pointed at me and said that you have heard,
give us at least 10 lakh rupees. Otherwise withdraw the
case. Otherwise, you know that nothing will be known
about you. And tell your family not to testify against us.
Otherwise everyone be ready to die. Seeing the pistol,
me and my daughter started running away in fear. Even
our voice could not come out. Rao Atif of Raipur said
where will she go after running away. And how long will
it run? Will either take a decision or give Rs. 10 lakh or
die. The person standing nearby, Salib alias Salu s/o
Dilshad, resident of Kunja Grant Vikas Nagar,
Dehradun, who is also the nephew and son-in-law of
Iqbal alias Bala, was repeatedly saying that surround
her in the car. Either she will decide or give money or
she will die today itself. Only then Salman’s son Latif of
village Mirzapur whom I already knew. He came on his
bike and stopped near us and asked what
happened…..So Suleman Kabaadi said that it has been
a long time now, people have started coming and going.
Saying this, people sat in the car and ran towards
Shahpur Gada. I sat here on the road. I could not
understand anything. I told all these things to Salman’s
son Latif, Mr. Khursid, Farooq, Maharaj who belong to
my family. These people threaten me by talking to my
family members over the phone to get a decision in the

9
 case against Iqbal alias Bala and his family. Sir I am
very worried please help me. Here is my statement. Sir,
the persons whose names I have told you used to visit
Iqbal alias Bala’s house, that is why I know them from
before. …”
12. With the recording of the further statement referred to

above, the investigating agency added Sections 147, 148, 149,

195A, 385 and 504 of the IPC.

13. We may also refer to one police statement of so-called

eye witness namely Salman. The statement reads thus:-

“Statement Eyewitness…Salman s/o Latife resident of

Kalyav police station Mirzapur district Saharanpur told
on being asked that 11.06.2022 morning around 7.00
am he was going from his home Mirzapur to Shahpur
Gada for some work, then on the way I saw that our
own village some people are standing around Mrs.
Husna on the road. Those who are around us. Whom I
know very well, one of whom is Suleman Kabaddi, son
of Furkan, resident of village Mirzapur Paul, police
station Mirzapur Paul, district Saharanpur, town
Mirzapur and the other person, Rashid’s son Mohd.
Resident Shahpur Gada police station Mirzapur district
Saharanpur and name of the fourth person Atif son of
Hameed resident Raipur police station Mirzapur district
Saharanpur and the name of the fifth person is Salib
alias Salu s/o Dilshad resident Kunja Grant Vikas
Nagar Dehradun who is a relative of Haji Iqbal alias
Bala, everyone is a respectable person, everyone keeps
coming and going in our village Mirzapur. These people
were abusing and threatening Husna wife Irfan resident
of village Mirzapur Paul police station Mirzapur district
Saharanpur to take a decision in the case written
against Haji Iqbal alias Bala and his family members.
And were demanding money for the expenses to be
incurred in the written case. When I reached here, all
these people sat in their Bolero car and went towards
Shahpur Gada. Where Mrs. Husna was sitting there in
a bod mood. When I asked her about what happened,

10
 Husna Devi told me all these things on the spot. Sir, it is
true that when I reached there with a motorcycle, these
people surrounded Husna and were standing on the
road in front of the petrol pump and were threatening
her. Of these Aslam also had a pistol in his hand. I am
giving this statement without any pressure. I have told
you what I have seen. I have nothing to do with anyone.
This is my statement.”

14. It appears from the aforesaid that the first informant in

her further statement made out altogether a different story

than what she narrated in the FIR. We would not go to the

extent of saying that since the name of the appellant herein

does not figure in the FIR and it came to be disclosed only for

the first time in the further statement of the victim that itself

can be a ground to quash the FIR. However, there are many

other attending circumstances emerging from the record of

the case which indicates that the case on hand is one of false

implication. Just because the appellant herein happens to be

the son-in-law of a very hardened criminal as alleged by name

Iqbal @ Bala, he has also been roped in by way of further

statement. It is pertinent to note that the victim in her FIR

has not even remotely referred to the presence of Salman s/o

Latife at village Mirzapur Paul. We are highlighting all this

only to demonstrate, how the entire case was fabricated step

by step.

11
15. There is a different angle to this matter. It appears that

the investigating agency has invoked Section 195A of the IPC.

Section 195A of the IPC reads thus:-

“Section 195A. Threatening any person to give

false evidence.─Whoever threatens another with any
injury to his person, reputation or property or to the
person or reputation of any one in whom that person is
interested, with intent to cause that person to give false
evidence shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years,
or with fine, or with both;
and if innocent person is convicted and sentenced in
consequence of such false evidence, with death or
imprisonment for more than seven years, the person who
threatens shall be punished with the same punishment
and sentence in the same manner and to the same
extent such innocent person is punished and sentenced.”

16. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that

if any individual is threatened with any injury to his person,

reputation or property and such threats are administered

with intent to cause that person to give false evidence, the

same would constitute an offence under Section 195A of the

IPC. In our opinion, none of the ingredients to constitute the

offence punishable under Section 195A of the IPC are

disclosed, on plain reading of the FIR and the further

statement of the first informant including the statement of the

so-called eye witness. The allegation in the FIR is that the

accused persons threatened and pressurised the first

12
informant to withdraw her first FIR bearing No. 122 of 2022

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376D,

323, 120B, 354A and 452 resply of the IPC. There is nothing

to indicate that the accused persons threatened the first

informant with intent that the first informant gives false

evidence before the Court of law. The later part of Section

195A makes it very clear that false evidence means false

evidence before the Court of law. On such false evidence if a

person is convicted and sentenced, then the person found

guilty of administering threats would be liable to be punished

with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner

and to the same extent as such innocent person is punished

and sentenced. The word “false” in Section 195A should be

read in the context with what has been explained in Section

191 of the IPC which falls in Chapter XI – of False Evidence

and Offences Against Public Justice. Thus, even if we believe

the allegations levelled in the FIR to be true, none of the

ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section

195A are disclosed. To give threat to a person to withdraw a

complaint or FIR or settle the dispute would not attract

Section 195A of the IPC.

13
17. In the aforesaid context, we must look into Section

195A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Section 195A

of the CrPC reads thus:-

“Section 195A. Procedure for witnesses in case

of threatening, etc.—A witness or any other person
may file a complaint in relation to an offence under
section 195A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”

18. The plain reading of the aforesaid provision indicates

that if a witness or any other person receives threats and

such threats are administered with an intent to cause that

person to give false evidence before the Court, then such

witness or person can file a complaint in relation to the

offence under Section 195A of the IPC. It goes without saying

that such complaint has to be lodged before the Court

recording the evidence. Section 195A of the CrPC provides a

remedy of filing a complaint. “Complaint” means as defined

under Section 2(d) of the CrPC which reads thus:-

“Section 2(d) “complaint” means any allegation

made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view
to his taking action under this Code, that some person,
whether known or unknown, has committed an
offence, but does not include a police report.
Explanation.—A report made by a police officer in a
case which discloses, after investigation, the
commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be
deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by
whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the
complainant;”
14
19. We are conscious of the fact that Section 195A of the

IPC is a cognizable offence. In a cognizable offence, police has

power to investigate. We are not going into the question

whether the bar of Section 195 of the CrPC would apply to

Section 195A of the IPC as we have taken the view that none

of the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under

Section 195A of the IPC are disclosed in the facts of the

present case.

20. We take notice of the fact that Section 386 of the IPC

has also been invoked. Section 386 of the IPC relates to

extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous

hurt. Section 386 of the IPC runs as follows:—

“Section 386. Extortion by putting a person in

fear of death or grievous hurt. —Whoever commits
extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of
grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.”

21. “Extortion” has been defined in Section 383 of the IPC

as follows:—

“Section 383. Extortion.—Whoever intentionally

puts any person in fear of any injury to that person,
or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the
person so put in fear to deliver to any person any
property or valuable security or anything signed or

15
 sealed which may be converted into a valuable
security, commits ‘extortion.

Illustrations

(a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel

concerning Z unless Z gives him money. He thus
induces Z to give him money. A has committed
extortion.
(b) A threatens Z that he will keep Z's child in
wrongful confinement, unless Z will sign and deliver
to A a promissory note binding Z to pay certain
monies to A. Z sings and delivers the note. A has
committed extortion.
(c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z's field
unless Z will sign and deliver to B a bond binding Z
under a penalty to deliver certain produce to B, and
thereby induces Z to sign and deliver the bond. A has
committed extortion.
(d) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt,
dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal to a
blank paper and deliver it to A. Z sings and delivers
the paper to A. Here, as the paper so signed may be
converted into a valuable security. A has committed
extortion.”

22. So from the aforesaid, it is clear that one of the

necessary ingredients of the offence of extortion is that the

victim must be induced to deliver to any person any property

or valuable security, etc. That is to say, the delivery of the

property must be with consent which has been obtained by

putting the person in fear of any injury. In contrast to theft, in

extortion there is an element of consent, of course, obtained

by putting the victim in fear of injury. In extortion, the will of

the victim has to be overpowered by putting him or her in fear

16
of injury. Forcibly taking any property will not come under

this definition. It has to be shown that the person was

induced to part with the property by putting him in fear of

injury. The illustrations to the Section given in the IPC make

this perfectly clear.

23. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to the following

observations made by a Division Bench of the High Court of

Patna in Ramyad Singh v. Emperor Criminal Revision No.

125 of 1931 (Pat):-

“If the facts had been that the complainant's thumb

had been forcibly seized by one of the petitioners and
had been applied to the piece of paper
notwithstanding his struggles and protests, then I
would agree that there is good ground for saying that
the offence committed whatever it may be, was not the
offence of extortion because the complainant would
not have been induced by the fear of injury but would
have simply been the subject of actual physical
compulsion.”

It was held:-

“It is clear that this definition makes it necessary for

the prosecution to prove that the victims Narain and
Sheonandan were put in fear of injury to themselves
or to others, and further, were thereby dishonestly
induced to deliver papers containing their thumb
impressions. The prosecution story in the present case
goes no further than that thumb impressions were
‘forcibly taken’ from them. The details of the forcible
taking were apparently not put in evidence. The trial

17
 Court speaks of the wrists of the victims being caught
and of their thumb impressions being then ‘taken’
……. The lower Courts only speak of the forcible
taking of the victim's thumb impression; and as this
does not necessarily involve inducing the victim to
deliver papers with his thumb impressions (papers
which could no doubt be converted into valuable
securities), I must hold that the offence of extortion is
not established.”

24. Thus, it is relevant to note that nowhere the first

informant has stated that out of fear, she paid Rs. 10 Lakh to

the accused persons. To put it in other words, there is

nothing to indicate that there was actual delivery of

possession of property (money) by the person put in fear. In

the absence of anything to even remotely suggest that the first

informant parted with a particular amount after being put to

fear of any injury, no offence under Section 386 of the IPC

can be said to have been made out.

25. However, as observed earlier, the entire case put up by

the first informant on the face of it appears to be concocted

and fabricated. At this stage, we may refer to the parameters

laid down by this Court for quashing of an FIR in the case of

Bhajan Lal (supra). The parameters are:-

“(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

18
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.”

19
In our opinion, the present case falls within the parameters

Nos. 1, 5 and 7 resply referred to above.

26. At this stage, we would like to observe something

important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court

invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the

FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the

ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or

vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking

vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty

to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say

so because once the complainant decides to proceed against

the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal

vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint

is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The

complainant would ensure that the averments made in the

FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary

ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will

not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments

made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of

20
ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute

the alleged offence are disclosed or not. 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.

The 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. Take for instance the

case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period

of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the

registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby

attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or

personal grudge as alleged.

27. In the overall view of the matter, we have reached the

conclusion that the FIR No. 175 of 2022 dated 11.08.2022

deserves to be quashed in so far as the appellant herein is

concerned. It is so apparent that as the State believes that

the father-in-law of the appellant namely Iqbal @ Bala is a

21
very hardened criminal, his son-in-law i.e. the present

appellant who has been implicated in the further statement of

the first informant is also a criminal.

28. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby

allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad is hereby set aside. The criminal

proceedings arising from FIR No. 175 of 2022 dated 11.08.2022

registered at Police Station Mirzapur, Saharanpur, State of U.P.

are hereby quashed.

29. It is needless to clarify that the observations made in

this judgment are relevant only for the purpose of the FIR in

question and the consequential criminal proceedings. None of

the observations shall have any bearing on any of the pending

criminal prosecutions or any other proceedings.

………………………………..J.
( B.R. GAVAI )

………………………………..J.
( J.B. PARDIWALA )
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 08, 2023

22