1 and 2 resply of the First Information Report (FIR) being the Crime Registration No 224 of 2022 dated 19.09.2022 registered with the Mirzapur Police Station, District Saharanpur, State of U.P. We requested him that you people are disturbing the peace and tranquility of us. We requested them to stop uttering abusive language. His name has been recorded as a tenure holder of agricultural land bearing Khasra No 256/1 situated at village Mayapur, District Saharanpur. It is his case that at that point of time the appellants herein and other co-accused hurled abuses to the first informant and his brother Rajkumar and all the accused thereafter assaulted the first informant and his brother with hands and fists.
The appellants herein went before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and filed Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No 15174 of 2022 and prayed for the quashing of the FIR in question. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.” Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid, the appellants are before this Court with the present appeal. Writ Petition
No 15174 of 2022, whereby the Hon’ble High Court has dismissed the said Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of FIR No 224 of 2022 dated 19.09.2022 registered under Sections 395, 504, 506 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code against six accused persons namely, Mohd.
In the year 2021, when the Complainant and his bother Raj Kumar went to Petitioner No 2’s house situated at Mirzapur, Saharanpur and requested him not to disturb the peace and tranquility of their land upon which Petitioner No 2 Iqbal, Mehmood Ali, Javed, Petitioner No.1 Mahmood Wajid, Alishan and Afzal abused the Complainant and thereafter they assaulted him and his brother Raj Kumar with their hands and fists. The allegations in the First Information Report are not only vague but also highly improbable given that except for the bald allegation that the incident occurred in the year 2021, there is no mention of the date and time of incident in the FIR. It is pertinent to submit that the Petitioners are neither the owner of the land nor have they got anything to do with the said land and there was therefore no question of the Petitioners having threatened and assaulted the Complainant. It is respectfully submitted that the alleged First Information Report has been maliciously instituted at the behest of the present ruling party in the State of Uttar Pradesh to wreak vengeance and to settle political scores with Petitioner No 2 Mohd.
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 and another VS. The Accused Iqbal @ Haji Iqbal @ Bala nor the other petitioners have signed the vakalatnama and affidavit and Iqbal is absconding from the law. The Accused Iqbal terrorized the people, he is a known name of terror in the area of District Saharanpur or Western State of Uttar Pradesh, due to which, no FIR(s)/Criminal cases were registered against the Accused Iqbal and his family members. Iqbal @ Bala is a history-sheeter, gang leader, known name of terror, if any relief to be given to such type of criminals, who are publicly involved in rape cases, dacoity cases, fraud cases, land grabbing cases, extortion cases etc will send a wrong message/signal to the society and those persons/victims who come against these wrongdoers will never get justice and no one will ever raise their voices against these criminals in future. In the present Government, the number of aggrieved People, Terrified People/Complainant(s) have been able to come forward to register or raise a voice against the Accused Iqbal.
Iqbal @
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/?p=548
Bala is the mining mafia in western part of state of Uttar Pradesh and several number of criminal cases are registered against him and his family members. The Accused Iqbal @ Bala, being Gang leader, and his gang members are criminal minded persons and indulges in anti-social activities and the Petitioners, to gain the illegal money, are involved in illegal mining business, grabbing the government and non- government land by taking illegal possession. Prasanna Kumar, reported as AIR 1990 SC 494 that in exceptional cases, to prevent of the powers of Court, the High Court might in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 Cr. FIR No 57 of 1990 U/s 379, 411 IPC and Section 26 of Forest Act at Mirzapur Police Station. 39 of 2018 420,467, 468, 471 IPC Janakpuri, Saharanpur FIR No 224 of 2022 U/s 395, 504, 506, 323 IPC:- c) The Petitioners and other accused robbed the Complainant and his brother and got the signature on stamp papers of the aforementioned land forcefully. b)
The Dacoity is defined under section 391 IPC, which stipulates that when five or more persons conjointly or attempt to commit a robbery or, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit “dacoity. d) Recently, this Hon’ble Court has held in case Mahendra Prasad Tiwari Vs Amit Kumar Tiwari & Anr reported as 2022 SCC Online SC 1057 held that delay is registration of the FIR is not a ground to discharge. Jagannath Mishra and the successor government might have legitimately felt that there was a case for initiation of prosecution and that is why the prosecution might have been initiated. Where a Ministry goes out of office, its successor may consider any glaring charges and may, if justified, order an inquiry.
Whether the plain reading of the FIR discloses commission of the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395 of the IPC? When extortion is robbery.—Extortion is “robbery” if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted. Here A has extorted the purse from Z, by causing Z to be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is there present.
This is extortion, and punishable as such: but it is not robbery, unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child.” Section 391 of the IPC defines “dacoity”.
Theft amounts to ‘robbery’ if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. 1941 Oudh 476, in the following words:- “The words “for that end” in sec.390 clearly mean that the hurt caused by the offender must be with the express object of facilitating the committing of the theft, or must be caused while the offender is committing the theft or is carrying away or is attempting to carry away the property obtained by theft. 1918 Madras 821, which followed two Calcutta cases of Otaruddi Manjhi v. Kafiluddi Manjhi, (1900-01) 5 C.W.N. Kafiluddi Manjhi (1900-01) 5 C.W.N. Ordinarily, if violence or hurt is caused at the time of theft, it would be reasonable to infer that violence or hurt was caused for facilitating the commission of the theft or for facilitating the carrying away of the property stolen or for facilitating the attempt to do so. 2 Lakh in his pocket and at the time of alleged incident, the amount was forcibly taken away by the accused persons, whether this taking away of Rs.
Even according to the first informant, the dispute was one relating to the agricultural land. The provisions of any criminal statute are to be construed and interpreted strictly. Its language must be given exact and technical meaning with no extension on account of implications or equitable considerations; or has been aptly asserted, its operation must be confined to cases coming clearly within the letter of the statute as well as within its spirit and reason. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.” Section 504 reads thus:- “ Section 504. —Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. Section 504 of the IPC contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/?p=554
It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant. 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 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. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the nature of the 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. 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 do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (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. (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.” In our opinion, the present case falls within the parameters Nos. 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 ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. … Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse.
want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. We wonder, whether the investigating agency was in a position to collect or recover any such document from the accused persons containing their signatures in the course of the investigation, more particularly when the State says that the investigation is over and the charge sheet is also ready. 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. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State vehemently submitted that considering the gross criminal antecedents of the appellants before us, the criminal proceedings may not be quashed. 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 Bhajan Lal (supra), then the Court should not decline to quash the criminal case only on the ground that the accused is a history sheeter.
Case Title: MOHAMMAD WAJID Vs. STATE OF U.P. (2023 INSC 683)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002340-002340 / 2023
