TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence - In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, Indian Penal Code, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dv., Mohd. Zahid Hussain, AOR, Jemtiben Ao, Mumtaz Javed Shaikh, Aarushi Singh, Vidhi Thaker and Prastut Dalvi, Advs. For the Respondent : Garima Prasad, AAG, Sr. Adv., Brijendra Chahar, Sr. Adv., Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR, Ashish Pandey, Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Shashank Gusain, Shubham Saxena, Akash, Shweta Yadav, Shyam Sundar Sharma and Prateek Rai, Advs. JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is at the instance of the original Accused Nos. 1 and 2 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. for the offences punishable Under Sections 395, 504, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 17.10.2022 in the Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 15174 of 2022 by which the High Court rejected the Writ Petition filed by Appellants herein thereby declining to quash the aforesaid FIR. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The Respondent No. 4 herein namely Ram Kumar lodged FIR No. 224 of 2022 for the offences enumerated above at the po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajkumar had visited the house of the Appellant No. 2 herein situated at Mirzapur to request him not to interfere with their lawful possession and ownership of the land in question. 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. It is further alleged that at that point of time the Accused persons on the point of a gun forcibly took away Rs. 2 Lakh from the pocket of the first informant. The Accused persons are also alleged to have threatened the first informant that if he would talk to anyone about the incident, then all his family members would be killed. In the last, the first informant has alleged that the Accused persons forcibly obtained signatures of the first informant and his brother on a plain stamp paper. After the alleged incident, the first informant and his brother Rajkumar left the house of the Appellant No. 2 herein. 5. It is pertinent to note that for the incident alleged to have occurred in the year 2021, the FIR was lodged in the year 2022. It is also pertinent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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. Iqbal alias Bala (Petitioner No. 2 herein), Mehmood Ali (Brother of Petitioner No. 2), Afjal (Son of Petitioner No. 2), Alishan (Son of Petitioner No. 2), Javed (Son of Petitioner No. 2), and Mohammad Wajid (Petitioner No. 1 herein and son of Petitioner No. 2) at Police Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur. 2. The allegation in the said FIR No. 224 of 2022 dated 19.09.2022 is that the Complainant Ram Kumar (Respondent No. 4 herein), who is a resident of Village Kasimpur, Mirzapur, District Saharanpur, is recorded as a tenure holder of land situated at Khasra No. 256/1, Village Mayapur, Mirzapur, District Saharanpur. It is further alleged that the Accused Haji Iqbal (Petitioner No. 2 herein) and his sons Javed, Mohammad Wajid (Petitioner No. 1 herein), Alishan, Afjal and his brother Mehmood Ali had earlier claimed that the said land bearing Khasra No. 256/1 belonged to them. In the year 2021, when the Complainant and his bother Raj Kumar went to Petitioner No. 2&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is submitted that after the change of Government in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 2017, the ruling party came to power and immediately after the change of the Government the Petitioners along with their family members were falsely implicated in more than 30 criminal cases at the behest of the ruling party. The Petitioners are being unnecessarily harassed by the State machinery including the Police. Although the Respondent State is heavily relying upon the criminal cases registered against the Petitioners and their family members to show that they are habitual offenders but till date the Petitioners have not been convicted by any Court of law and moreover every time the Petitioners or their family members gets protection (anticipatory bail or stay of arrest) from either this Hon'ble Court or the Hon'ble High Court, the local police immediately registers false cases against them. 6. It is submitted that the alleged Look Out Notice dated 10.05.2022 was issued much prior to the registration of the present FIR No. 224 of 2022 which was registered on 19.09.2022 and as such is inconsequential. 7. It is respectfully submitted that the alleged First Information Report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nous and gross cases. B. Iqbal @ Haji Iqbal @ Bala is the Most Wanted Criminal in the area of Mirjapur District Saharanpur creating terror in the minds of the citizens. He is a known sand mafia, land grabber having grabbed Government Land, Forest Land, Poor Farmers' Land and built a university namely Glocal University, Saharanpur in the area of more than 700 Acres. The Office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut, vide its office memo dated 11.02.2023, has declared Iqbal @ Bala a most wanted criminal with a prize money of Rs. 1,00,000/- PROTECTION OF EARLIER DISPENSATION: It is evident that the Crime world of Accused Iqbal and his family has grown over the past decades with support of earlier dispensation/Government(s), and that is why the criminal cases registered against him in the years 1990 - 1993, were withdrawn by the earlier Government(s). 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. LOOK OUT NOTICES: The Accused Iqbal is absconding from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fia, sand mafia, rapists, gangster. The Accused Iqbal started committing fraud, theft and robbery cases in the initial days. Eventually, he became involved in the illegal mining cases and became a gang leader. Thereafter, the Accused Iqbal started to grab the forest land as well as government land in the District of Saharanpur. His family members and close associates also started to grab the land of the poor people. The Accused Mohd. Iqbal @ 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 Mohd. Iqbal, Resident of District Saharanpur and Ex-Member, Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council (BSP MLC) is involved in the various criminal activities. The main allegations against Mohd. Iqbal are as follows: Amassed disproportionate assets; Incorporated a number of sham companies under the Companies Act, 1956, many of which have dummy directors or fictitious shareholders; Used Glocal University in Saharanpur (located in exceeding area more than 700 acres, where he is the founder Chancellor and managed by the Abdul Waheed Educational and Charitable Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prima facie reveals commissions of cognizable offence. The Accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala has been involved in more than 45 criminal cases including rape cases, illegal mining, land grabbing, fraud cases, assault cases and other criminal cases since 1990. The first FIR was registered against the Accused Iqbal in 1990 i.e. FIR No. 57 of 1990 Under Section 379, 411 Indian Penal Code and Section 26 of Forest Act at Mirzapur Police Station. However, due to earlier Government(s) supports, no legal actions were taken against the Accused Iqbal and his family members. The following criminal cases are registered against the Accused Iqbal are as follows: Sr. No. FIR/Crime No. Under Section Police Station District 1. 57 of 1990 379, 411 Indian Penal Code and Section 26 Forest Act Mirzapur Saharanpur 2. 53 of 1991 379, 411 Indian Penal Code and Section 4/10 Forest Act Chilkana Saharanpur 3. 217 of 1993 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aranpur 17. 101 of 2022 504, 506 Indian Penal Code Mirzapur Saharanpur 18. 102 of 2022 420, 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code Mirzapur Saharanpur 19. 89 of 87-88 Badkala Forest Range 20. 29 of 89-90 Badkala Forest Range 21. 173 of 89- 90 Badkala Forest Range 22. 53 of 91 4/10 Forest Act Behat Saharanpur 23. 70 of 91-92 Behat Saharanpur 24. 71 of 91-92 Behat Saharanpur 25. 72 of 91-92 Behat Saharanpur 26. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit dacoity. c) Further, the robbery has defined Under Section 390 Indian Penal Code, which stipulates that Theft is 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. In the present case, the other Accused persons (total 6 Accused persons) have looted extorted the complainant. The contents of the FIR prima facie reveals that the Complainant, when they visited the house of the Petitioners, he was looted and wrongful restrained by the Petitioners. The Petitioners and the other Accused persons, as such, prima facie involved in the offences as mentioned in the FIR. d) Recently, this Hon'ble Court has held in case Mahendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari and Anr. reported as 2022 SCC Online SC 1057 held that delay is registration of the FIR is not a ground to discharge. e) This Hon'ble C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur or Sheonandan Paswan was actuated by political motivation or vendetta. 9. Ms. Garima Prasad brought to the notice of this Court that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet is ready to be filed against the Appellants and other co-Accused, however, due to the interim order passed by this Court on 28.11.2022, the Investigation Officer has not been able to file the charge sheet before the concerned trial court. ANALYSIS 10. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the following questions fall for the consideration by this Court: 1. Whether the plain reading of the FIR discloses commission of the offence of dacoity punishable Under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code? To put it in other words, even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed to be true, whether the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity punishable Under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code are disclosed? 2. Whether any case of criminal intimidation punishable Under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code is made out? 3. Whether the allegations levelled in the FIR inspire any confidence con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery. (c) A meets Z and Z's child on the high road. A takes the child, and threatens to filing it down a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence, delivers his purse. 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. A has therefore committed robbery on Z. (d) A obtains property from Z by saying Your child is in the hands of my gang, and will be put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees . 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. 12. Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code defines dacoity . Section 391 reads thus: Section 391. Dacoity. - When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, 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 . 13. Section 395 provides for punishment for the offence of dacoity. Section 395 reads thus: Section 395. Punishment for dacoity. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Gounden v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1918 Madras 821, which followed two Calcutta cases of Otaruddi Manjhi v. Kafiluddi Manjhi, (1900-01) 5 C.W.N. 372, and King Emperor v. Mathura Thakur, (1901-02) 6 C.W.N. 72, it has been observed at page 824 as follows: Now it is our duty to give effect to the words for that end . It would have been open to the legislature to have used other words which would not raise the difficulty that arises here. The Public Prosecutor has been forced to argue that for that end must be read as meaning 'in those circumstances'. In my opinion we cannot do that in construing a Section in the Penal Code. Undoubtedly, words 'in those circumstances' would widen the application of the Section and we are not permitted to do that. The matter has been considered in two judgments of the Calcutta High Court one of which is reported as Otaruddi Manjhi v. Kafiluddi Manjhi (1900-01) 5 C.W.N. 372. Their Lordships put the question in this way: It seems to us that the whole question turns upon the words for that end . Was any hurt or fear of instant hurt, that was caused in the present case, caused for the end of the commission of the theft? We think not. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst informant and his brother are said to have visited the house of the Appellant No. 2 on their own free will and volition. It is only after reaching the house of the Appellant No. 2 that the entire incident is alleged to have occurred. We should be mindful of the fact that we are dealing with provisions of a criminal statute, like the Indian Penal Code. The provisions of any criminal statute are to be construed and interpreted strictly. 19. The general Rule governing the interpretation of penal statute is that it must be strictly construed. Strict interpretation in the words of Crawford connotes: If a statute is to be strictly construed, nothing should be included within its scope that does not come clearly within the meaning of the language used. 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. Or stated perhaps more concisely, it is close and conservative adherence to the literal or textual interpretation. 20. According to Sutherland, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. 24. An offence Under Section 503 has following essentials: 1) Threatening a person with any injury; (i) to his person, reputation or property; or (ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested. 2) The threat must be with intent; (i) to cause alarm to that person; or (ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or (iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat. 25. Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code 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 m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose his temper and say or do something violent. Public peace can be broken by angry words as well as deeds. (Emphasis supplied) 27. A bare perusal of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the Accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. 28. 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 Indian Penal Code may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not Under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations with respect to the offence punishable Under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code can also be looked at from a different perspective. In the FIR, all that the first informant has stated is that abusive language was used by the Accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the FIR. One of the essential elements, as discussed above, constituting an offence Under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usly 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. 1, 5 and 7 referred to above. 30. 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 consti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. 6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866: 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: (AIR p. 869, para 6) 38 (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. 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. 7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction Under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily emb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances 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. If the FIR, like the one in the case on hand, is lodged after a period of more than one year without disclosing the date and time of the alleged incident and further without any plausible and convincing explanation for such delay, then how is the Accused expected to defend himself in the trial. It is altogether different to say that in a given case, in the course of investigation the investigating agency may be able to ascertain the date and time of the incident, etc. The recovery of few incriminating articles may also at times lend credence to the allegations levelled in the FIR. However, in the absence of all such materials merely on the basis of vague and general allegations levelled in the FIR, the Accused cannot be put to trial. 34. 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. The learned Additional Advocate General ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
