Surinder Suri vs State of Haryana and others

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by Surinder Suri and Ramesh Kumar sons of Kimti Lal whereby they have preyed for the quashing of FIR No. 297 dated 4.8.1995 under Sections 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, P.S. City Jagadhri and the resultant proceedings thereof pending before Ms. Sarita Gupta, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri.

Before adverting the grounds on which they have prayed for the quashing of aforesaid FIR and the resultant proceedings thereof pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, it would be necessary to give brief background of their relations inter se.

Smt Vinay Kumari, sister of Pawan Kumar respondent was married to Surinder Suri on 28.4.1988 at Yamunanagar according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. From their wedlock, two children were born. Unfortunately, they could not enjoy marital bliss for long and their marriage ran into rough weather. Surinder Suri instituted petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against Smt. Vinay Kumari on 4.8.1994 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar. In response to the process issued by the Court, Smt. Vinay Kumari appeared in Court. Surinder Suri withdrew that petition for divorce on assurance having been given by Smt. Vinay Kumari that she would not misbehave with him (Surinder Suri) and his parents. Addl. District Judge, Yamunanagar dismissed that petition having compromised in view of the statement of Surinder Suri. In fact, the compromise did not emanate from the core of the heart of Vinay Kumari, her brothers and father. Her father Mulkh Raj and brothers Pawan Kumar and Mukesh Kumar did not desire that Smt. Vinay Kumari should cohabit with her husband and stay in the matrimonial home like a dutiful wife.

Surinder Suri instituted petition for divorce against Smt. Vinay Kumari on 4.10.1994 when it had transpired that she was not being sent to the matrimonial home by her father Mulkh Raj and brothers Mukesh Kumar and Pawan Kumar. Court issued process for her appearance before it for 9.11.1994. Process was duly served upon her on 27.10.1994.

Smt. Vinay Kumari instituted case under Section 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code against Surinder Suri and others. It was a police case. Police investigated the case and challan was submitted against him and others. Ramesh Suri and Surinder Suri instituted complaint against brothers and sisterinlaw i.e. brother''s wife of Smt Vinay Kumari under Sections 405/406/467/471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as they are partners of Lal Finance Company for the recovery of Rs. 3 lacs. Police investigated the case and was going to submit the final report. Pawan Kumar is real brother of Smt. Vinay Kumari. In conspiracy with the members of his (Pawan Kumar) family, he tried to drag Surinder Suri into different cases. High Court granted bail to Surinder Suri in case FIR No. 278/95 on 1.8.1995. Thereafter, Pawan Kumar and his family became thirsty for his blood. Pawan Kumar is a Press Reporter of Punjab Kesri. He was able to secure registration of the case against Surinder Suri etc. under Section 506/34, Indian Penal Code vide FIR No. 297/95 dated 4.8.1995 by exercising the influence of some senior officers of the Police department.

In nutshell, the parties are at war with each other because of strained relations of Smt. Vinay Kumari with her husband Surinder Suri whose marriage had run into rough weather and they become thirsty for each other''s blood.

It has been prayed that this Court should have a peep into the facts of this FIR No. 297/95 dated 4.8.1995 microscopically in the light of the aforesaid backdrop to find out whether the facts set up by Pawan Kumar have any grain of truth in them or he has authored this first information report only with a view of stall Surinder Suri from claiming matrimonial relief against his wife Smt. Vinay Kumari and this first information report is abuse of the process of the Court.

In the return filed by respondent No. 3 i.e. Pawan Kumar, he has submitted that they must face trial when bare reading of the first information report discloses the commission of cognizable offence by them. First information report can be quashed at the threshold when no cognizable offence is made out even if the facts set up in the FIR are taken to be correct and on their face value. Surinder Suri was cruel to his wife Smt. Vinay Kumari. He has filed divorce petition against her on frivolous grounds. He (Pawan Kumar) is a respectable person. It is altogether irrelevant if he was convicted and sentenced earlier for any offence. He (Pawan Kumar) was always ready and willing to induct his sister into the matrimonial home, but it is Surinder Suri who was cruel to her and who did not allow their marriage to work well. Surinder Suri got a false case registered against M/s Lal Finance Company. On investigation, that case was found to be false and the police submitted cancellation report.

Respondent No. 1, Shiv Shakti Rao, Superintendent of Police, Yamunanagar also filed return to this criminal miscellaneous.

It was urged that FIR No. 297 dated 4.8.1995 was registered on true facts. F.I.R. No. 297 dated 4.8.1995 was investigated. Challan was put in the Court which is pending.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and learned counsel for the State of Haryana and have gone through the record. Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335 has laid down that the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Supreme Court has enumerated some of the instances wherein such powers should be exercised:

Where the allegations made in the first information report do not constitute a cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by the police without an order of the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 156(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Where the allegations made in the first information report are 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.

Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the first information report 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.

Where 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.

5.

6.

7.

The aforesaid guidelines given by the Supreme Court are by way of illustrations wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Smt. Vinay Kumari is wife of Surinder Suri and Ramesh Kumar is her brotherinlaw i.e. husband''s brother. Pawan Kumar is her own brother. Mrs. Vinay Kumari and her husband are at loggerheads since sometime past prior to the registration of this first information report at the instance of her brother Pawan Kumar on 4.8. 1995. Prior to 4.8.1995, case FIR No.100 dated 9.5.1995 under Sections 405/406/420 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Farakpur on the complaint of Surinder Suri which was sent to the Police Station by the Magistrate for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Perior to 9.5.1995, case FIR No. 278 dated 26.11.1994 was registered against Surinder Suri and others. In this case, it is be examined whether FIR No. 297 dated 4.8.1995 was or was not genuine or was got registered by Smt. Vinay Kumari''s brother to satisfy his personal vendetta maliciously and malafide. If that is so, FIR No. 297 dated 4.8.1995 shall have to be quashed.

According to the allegations set out in FIR No. 297 dated 4.8.1995 under Section 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code by Pawan Kumar, on 2.8.1995 at about 7.00 P.M., he alongwith Bhusan and Ajit Kumar were passing through HUDA Colony, Jagadhri. He was driving scooter ahead of Bhusan and Ajit Kumar. They were behind him. Surinder Suri and his brother Ramesh came there all of sudden. Surinder Suri was driving scooter and his brother Ramesh Kumar was sitting on the pillion. They slowed down their scooter and came there. They threatened to kill him and abused him. They further threatened that in future if he published any news against them, he would be eliminated. In the meantime, Bhusan and Ajit also came near him. Thereupon, Surinder Suri and Ramesh Kumar sped away their scooter. Pawan Kumar is a Press Reporter feeding news to Punjab Kesri. Pawan Kumar, Bhusan and Ajit went to their house and narrated the occurrence to Pawan Kumar''s brother. They reached police Station, City Jagadhri at 10.00 P.M. where ASI Amarnath met them. He was in civilian dress. He told them that if they reported the matter at the police station, they would have to face the consequences.

First information report was not lodged promptly. There is 2 days delay in the lodging of the first information report. Delay in the lodging of the first information report is sought to be explained by Pawan Kumar by saying that ASI Amarnath threatened them that if they reported the matter at the police station, they would have to face the consequences. Therefore, they returned to their house. Pawan Kumar is a Press Reporter feeding news to the Punjab Kesri. He is aware of his rights and duties of the police. It is not forthcoming why he did not report the matter to the police on 3.8.1995. It is not forthcoming why he did not complain against ASI Amarnath to the higher authorities. If Surinder Suri and Ramesh Kumar had the intention to criminally intimidate, they would have dashed their scooter against him. It is not the allegation of Pawan Kumar that they were armed. If they were not armed, how did he feel intimidated by mere words only that he would be eliminated. Pawan Kumar does not seem to be a weakling. He is a Press Reporter feeding news to the Punjab Kesri. He is a convict under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. How could mere words without the use of any weapon or show of criminal force, intimidate him or cow him down ?

Court whlie considering the question of quashing of the first information report, has to see the malafides of the comlainant, if there be any. If dominant purpose in filing the first information report is malafide, FIR would have to be quashed. This view was taken by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in M/s Neelam Mahajan Singh v. Commissioner of Police and others, 1994(2) CLR 181. Article 226 of the Constitution confers extraordinary jurisdication on the High Court to issue appopriate writ, order or direction as may be necessary in the administration of justice. This is a wide discretionary power. Similarly, the High Court has wide inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This power is, however, to be exercised with certain amount of circumspection and with utmost care and caution. Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code defines criminal intimidation as follows:

"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 alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

Explanation A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."

If we carefully go through the provisions of Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code, I do not think the allegations made by Pawan Kumar on the basis of which FIR No. 297 dated 4.81995 was registered will satisfy the ingredients of Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the offence is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon the mind of the person threatened. The threat must be one which can be put into execution by the person threatening. A threat, in order to be indictable must be made with intent to cause alarm to the complainant. As for instance mere vague allegation by the accused that he is going to take revenge by false complaints cannot amount to criminal intimidation. In this case, it is doubtful if the so called threat could have any effect upon Pawan Kumar that he would be killed, when the petitioners did not dash their scooter against him. I am equally alive to this principle of law that the High Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for prosecution in very rare and exceptional circumstances. It should invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in very rare and exceptional cases for quashing the prosecution. I am equally alive that criminal prosecution should be quashed in exercise of these powers by this Court if the intention of the complainamt is malicious and is to wreak vengeance on the accused and to spite him due to private and personal grudge and not to vindicate the law for the good of the society.

In this case, my feeling is that this case FIR No. 297 dated 4.8.1995 authored by Pawan Kumar is the offshoot of the iltigation spree due to the strained relations of Mrs. Vinay Kumari sister of Pawan Kumar with her husband Surinder Suri petitioner.

For the reasons given above, this petition is accepted and FIR No. 297 dated 4.8.1995 under section 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station City Jagadhri together with the proceedings consequential thereto pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri is quashed.