Blog

Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, 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 and the same was upheld by High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by JUSTICE ASHA MENON in the case of MR. ABHISHEK GUPTA & ANR. vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. [CRL.M.C. 1064/2022] on 16.03.2022.

The facts of the case are that property in Punjabi Bagh, Delhi belonged to Mr. Sunil Datt and Mr. Ashok Kumar, whereas the complainant who had been divorced by Mr. Sunil Datt way back in 2000 was claiming a right to the ground floor. She could produce no document to reflect that she had been in possession of the ground floor for the last two years. Moreover, after the husband and wife had divorced, it could not be reasonably believed that 17 years later the respondent would have given the keys of the ground floor to the ex-husband. It was submitted that Smt. Janak Dulari, the aunt of Mr. Sunil Datt and Mr. Ashok Kumar, who are brothers, is living in the first floor of the same property and there were some disputes inter se parties.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that in the initial complaint and PCR calls, the petitioners had not been named. The presence of the petitioner Ajay Gupta was on account of the fact that the brothers, who were residents of Burmingham, United Kingdom had asked him to go to the premises at the instance of Smt. Janak Dulari, their aunt and he had only accompanied the Police. Therefore, there could be no trespass when the petitioner had gone to the property on that occasion.

The respondent’s counsel submitted that since there was discretion vested with the Magistrate to accept or reject the conclusions drawn by the Investigating Officer, the petition was premature as it had been filed without waiting for an order to be passed by the Magistrate in terms of Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that the respondent is a single woman whereas the petitioners are land-grabbers and the relationship between the respondent and her husband Mr. Sunil Datt is irrelevant to the case at hand.

It is very clear that the decision to exercise or not to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would be predicated on the facts of each case but while considering the facts of the case, the court cannot embark on an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. It is clear, therefore, that the facts of each case would determine the exercise of the discretion vested in the court to quash criminal proceedings in order to prevent abuse of process of court. The Court held that there is no ground to exercise those powers in the present case.

It was observed by Court that, “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.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by – Shristi Suman