Amit Kumar & Ors v. State & Anr

ORDER

23.1.r.2011 Crl. M.A. No. 18240i2011 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to alljust exceptions. W.P. (Crl.) 1605/2011 & Crl. M.A. No. 18241/2011 (Stav)

¶1In the present petition the Petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No. 21912011 under Sections 147 11481149132314521427 134 IPC registered at PS Moti Nagar, Delhi on the ground that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the said FIR and the same is maliciously registered thus causing miscarriage of justice.

¶2According to the Petitioners, the I{espondent No. 2 and his associates Y are local residents involved in criminal activities and cause hindrance and nuisance in the society. On 14th Septernber,20Il at about 3.30 p.m. when the Petitioner No. I was present at his house, the complainant along with his associates Rajiv, Ravi, Rajender, Sunil @ Kakku, Anuj, Bijender, Prem, Nitesh and Amit in furtherance of their common object entered the house of the Petitioner No. 1 in order to kill and thereby started beating the family members resulting in injuries to his neighbourer Sanjay and Rajesh by iron rods and also darnaged the Car bearing No. DL-2C-AN-I237. On this complaint of the Petitioner No.1 FIR No. 2|8l20ll under Sections I47lI48l|49l323l 4521427134 IPC was registered. However, despite the Petitioners' FIR a cross false FIR has been registered being FIR No. 21912011 against the Petitioners, the quashing of which is sought by the Petitioners.

¶3The allegations as set out in the FIR No. 21912011 registered against the Petitioners on the complaint of Rajender I(urnar state that the corrplainant along with his family was residing in Basai Darapur and he was doing the job of beating the drums in parties. On 14th September, 20II at about 3.30 p.m. when he was present at his home many people came carrying lathis, dandas etc. and they used filthy language against his family g and neighbours. According to the Complainant, Amit Kumar, Anand Kumar, Kamal Singh, Nitin Chautala, Sandeep, Rarndeva, Rajesh and Sanjay, that is, the Petitioners herein were present. They threatened the Complainant that he had filed a case against them and in case he does not withdraw the same they would rnake his life difficult. After entering the house they beat the Complainant and Rahul and damaged Car No. DL-4CM-3815. The said persons were having lathis, dandas, rods and hockey sticks in their hands with which they gave beatings. The damaged vehicle was seized and the MLC of the injured Rajender was recorded.

¶4Thus it is apparent that on the complaint of both the sides FIRs have been registered. Both the sides are alleging beating by rods, dandas etc. and damage to their respective cars. Ihe MLCs of the Petitioners and the assailants who are the Cornplainants and victirn in the cross FIR have been collected by the Police. This Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cv.I>.C. will not appreciate the evidence and come to the conclusion that the FIR registered was false, malicious and motivated. The contention of the Petitioner that the FIR in question cannot be registered as both the versions cannot be trud deserves to be rejected. There are injuries and darnage of vehicles on both sides, and thus both are \ { independent causes of action. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. (2004) I3 SCC 292 f:Jing of a counter complaint is perrnissible.

¶5The I{on'ble Supreme Courl in State of Karnataka v,s. M. Devendrappa and Anr., 2002 (3) SCC 89 held that the Fligh Court has inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the procecdings, however, the said power should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution. It was further held that the High Court should not assume the rolc of the trial Court and embark upon the enquiry. The power should be exercised sparingly with caution and circumspection.

¶6'fhe casc of the petitioners does not fall within any of the pararncters laid down in the State of Haryanavs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 (s"ppl) (1) SCC 335. The allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The claim of the complainant is foftified by the MLCs and the darnaged vehicle. There is no legal bar in continuing the proceedings.

¶7Sincc thc facts of the present case do not satisff the test laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka or State of llaryana (Supra), no ground for quashing of the FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto is K. poge 4 of 5 made out.

¶8Petition and application ale dismissed. NOVEMBER 23,2OII tvnt W ,MUKTA GUPTA, J. psge 5 of5

72# 8- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + w.P.(cRL) r60sl20rr AMIT KUMAR & ORS Through: Mr. R.K. Chandiwal and Mr. Manoj I(umar. Advocates. VETSLIS STATE & ANR ..... ResPondents Through: Ms. Urvi I(uthiala, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Additional Standing Counsel with SI Manoj Bhatia, PS Moti N4gar, Delhi. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA