Flinging any liquid on another person or any substance other than acid is not an offense U/S 326B IPC –Delhi High court
Case Title: Rashmee Kansal v. The State and Anr.,
W.P.(CRL) 712/2022
Appearance
Petitioner: Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Mr. Kshitij Mittal, Mr. Anshul Mittal, Mr. Harshit Vashisht and Mr. Sarthak Sharma.
Respondent: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC (Crl.) with Mr. Alok Sharma, Mr. S.K. Sharma and Mr. Rohan Kumar.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
Introduction
under Section 326-B of the IPC, an offense is made out only if a person throws or attempts to throw ‘acid’ on another person, and not any other liquid or substance -the Delhi High Court has held.
The FIR registered is thus overruled on the assertion of throwing acid on a woman i.e. her sister in law it is discovered that the substance thrown on the respondent is not found to be acid and the assertion appeared to be motivated by an ongoing property dispute between the above-mentioned parties.
Facts of the case
The respondent had asserted that the petitioner i.e her sister in law had tossed a hot liquid at her, which fell on her right shoulder, Blouse, and saree
The petitioner has filed the suit for quashing the FIR lodged against him by declaring that she and the respondent had resided at a common property, It is also stated that the respondent had tried to harass the petitioner by filing the FIR against her, As there was a running property dispute between them, It was contended that before the asserted Incident.
Samples of the liquid collected from the spot of incidence were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. As per the FSL report, the liquid substance collected from the tiles and the floor was found to be Hydrochloric Acid
Respondent No. 2 and her family have been attempting to grab the terrace of the house and are interfering in the peaceful occupation of the petitioner.
It has been added that under Section 326-B of the IPC, an offense is made out only if a person throws or attempts to throw ‘acid’ on another person, and not any other liquid or substance.
Analysis of the Court
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors and Iqbal v. State of U.P
The High Court can go beyond the averments made in the FIR/complaint and ‘read between the lines’ to examine if the ingredients to constitute the alleged offense are made out or not. To achieve this, the High Court can take into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the material collected in the course of the investigation. Of course, while exercising the aforesaid powers, the High Court must exercise due caution, care and circumspection – Justice Bansal said
Concerning criminal intimidation, the court remarked that there was no allegation in the FIR to substantiate the offense.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the consequential charge sheet dated 11th January 2018 and the proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written By
Kaulav roy chowdhury