#satymevjayatey
#letthetruthprevail
#neelam4justice
Preface: Summary of the historical judgment for false FIRs and quashing in the High Court of the States U/a 482 Cr. P. C.
☆ At the age of 25 yrs, I fought my Ist legal battle for Fundamental Rights, against mighty IPS officials, for misusing their influence and collaterally filing a malicious FIR, "TO TEACH CITIZENS A LESSON".
I was a lovely lady! Yeah?I never knew that this fake FIR, "OVER THE FIGHT OF TWO SERVANTS" WOULD LEAD TO A HISTORIC JUDGEMENT, BY FULL BENCH OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, HEADED BY CHIEF JUSTICE Y. K. SABHARWAL, JUSTICE P. K. BAHRI, JUSTICE R. L. GUPTA, IN "QUASHING OF FIR" ON THE GROUNDS OF "TRIVIALITY".
It was also Ordered for quashing, by Justice Mahendra Narain, Justice Sunanda Bhandare and Justice Leela Seth.
Brief background: My servant and A.K. Gupta, IPS, DIG, I.B.'s servants were Nepalis. They had an argument with each other. My servant was stolen by DIG to work for him, ie. "Servant Theft"! On a minor argument, both myself and DIG, filed a complaint in the PS: Tilak Marg, New Delhi. It was a "trivial matter" and I didn't give any credence to the matter. I left for work to Doordarshan News Room,where I was a Senior News Correspondent. Oh God, but not for this IPS officer, who 'stole my servant'. He sent a complaint as DIG, IPS, IB! It scared ASAD FAROOQI, DCP- New Delhi, who obliged the DIG and gave a "WRITTEN ORDER" TO BALBIR SINGH, SHO, PS : TILAK MARG, TO FILE AN FIR "UNDER INTIMATION TO ME: ASAD FAROOQI".
This became nemesis of Asad Farooqi, who was obviously targeted for misuse of power, by his detractors within Delhi Police. MR. BALBIR SINGH, SHO, PS : TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI, IN HIS REPORT TO DELHI HIGH COURT SAID, "IT WAS AN ORDINARY MATTER OF MISUNDERSTANDING. THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT BETWEEN THE SERVANTS OF BOTH COMPLAINANTS, MS. NEELAM M.SINGH AND SH. A.K. GUPTA. NO CASE IS MADE OUT AS IT WAS A MINOR ARGUEMENT OF COLONY RESIDENTS".
BALBIR SINGH SHO, SD.
This Report of the SHO became the last nail in the coffin of Asad Farooqui and A.K. Singh. However while the High Court made scathing observations about the two IPS Police officials, but it was "the overzealous Asad Farooqui, DCP- New Delhi" who had to bear the wrath of ILLEGALLY COMPELLING S.H.O. TO REGISTER AN FIR, ALTHOUGH, NO CASE WAS MADE OUT!
THE FIR WAS QUASHED BY THE FULL BENCH OF DELHI HIGH COURT. The Police officials who perpetuated this illegal FIR had to bite the dust.
The media was higly supportive to the #neelam4justice #letthetruthprevail #satymevjayatey
My counsel was Vijay Kumar Shali, who later graduated to the Bench as Justice V. K. Shali !
SUDDENLY I WAS MAKING "NEWS HEADLINES FOR FIGHT FOR JUSTICE." It wasn't the Presss...te media,
Police, Powers! Media had well meaning journalists in those days ! Actually the arbitrary powers, misused by the Police, for registering FIRs against common man, are violative of Rule of Law. I became the "messiah & voice of the common man", although by default.
Late G. K. Singh, Pankaj Vohra, H. K. Dua, Sanjay Suri, Rahul Dev, and several journalists helped me. Farooqui was personally pulled up by M. B. Kaushal, IPS, Commissioner of Police, Delhi. Mr. Y. S. Dadwal, IPS, had gone to DCP- NEW DELHI'S OFFICE IN THE "ABUSIVE OUTBURST OF ASAD FAROOQI ON WALKIE TALKIE NETWORK, WHICH WAS LIVE FOR 2 HOURS". Asad Farooqui was suspended by C.P. Delhi. Is this brutal, uncivilized behavior of an IPS officer okay? Surely repugnant!
26 years back, NEELAM MAHAJAN SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE - DELHI & A.K. SINGH, ASAD FAROOQUI DCP - NEW DELHI & OTHERS IS "A QUOTABLE QUOTE CASE" FOR QUASHING OF FIR, ON GROUNDS OF "TRIVILITY". OBVIOUSLY THIS REPORTED JUDGEMENT HAS BEEN SO MUCH QUOTED BY LAWYERS ALL OVER INDIA.
Thanksgiving to Justice Y. K. Sabharwal, Chief Justice, Justice P. K. Bahri, Justice R. L. Gupta for becoming the "voice of the common man", who is falsely, maliciously implicated by the Police, in fake FIRs.
☆ EVEN AFTER ONE GENERATION PAST, THE PSYCHE OF PEOPLE HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN THIS CASE. Learn a lesson friends !
****************************************************
Comments:-
Pritam Sanghera
You have fought bravely against the powerful bureaucracy right from your early life. You have protected human dignity and respect by legal fights without fear and brought justice to the poor and downtrodden.
Preetam Sanghera.
Shishir Singh comments:-
We are here to follow the truth, wherever it might lead us! Congratulations Neelam on your tenacity, persistence and indefatigable courage
😍😍
NEELAM MAHAJAN SINGH aka Neil, aka Neelam Singh.
TRUE JUDGEMENT OF JUSTICE Y.K. SABHARWAL, JUSTICE R.L.GUPTA, JUSTICE P.K BAHRI- DELHI HIGH COURT.
Cites 17 docs - [View All]
Section 95 in The Indian Penal Code
Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949
The Indian Penal Code
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code
Citedby 3 docs
Raj Kumar Khanna vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) And Ors. on 15 October, 2001
Vijay And Anr. vs State And Anr. [Along With Crl. ... on 28 February, 2008
Vishal Singh Chauhan vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 18 January, 2016
Lalit Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 16 January, 2018
triviality
quashing of first information report
gurdeep singh
Section 95 of Indian Penal Code
section 95 of ipc
neelam mahajan
neelam
criminal trespassing
intimidation
malafide
tilak
neelam mahajan singh
infructuous
insult
a. k. gupta
section 448
section 452
452
sabharwal
misbehave
Delhi High Court
Neelam Mahajan Singh vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors. on 17 September, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993 IVAD Delhi 9, 1994 (2) Crimes 75, 53 (1994) DLT 389, 1993 (27) DRJ 357, (1994) 108 PLR 39
Author: Y Sabharwal
Bench: Y Sabharwal, P Bahri, R Gupta
JUDGMENT Y.K. Sabharwal, J.
(1) Petitioner Ms.Neelam Mahajan Singh (for short 'Ms. Singh') lives in Flat NO.A 506 on the 5th floor of multistoried complex at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, popularly known as Curzon Road flats. The respondent No.5 Mr.A.K.Gupta (for short 'Gupta') lives in Flat No.A-206 on second floor in the same complex.
(2) Ms. Singh, a television news correspondent in News Division of Doordarshan and whose late husband was an Indian Administrative Service Officer is living in that flat with her school going son. Gupta is holding the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police in the Intelligence Bureau. They would not have thought that a small incident would lead to such a legal tussle which would require examination and determination by a Full Bench at the very threshold. The incident took place on 28th September 1992. Ms.Singh's version of the incident, as stated in the petition, in brief, is as follows:-
"ON28th September, 1992 at about 8 Am she came back from morning walk and while climbing the stairs leading to her flat she found her domestic help Mr.Narender Pal was loitering around the corridors of the second floor chatting with some other person who later on was learnt by her to be the servant, named, Mr. Khem Pal of Gupta. She told Narender Pal to return to her flat to attend to the work and not to loiter around there. Meantime, one middle aged woman who later on was learnt to be the wife of Gupta came out of the apartment on the varandah as she was already standing at the entrance of flat No.A-206. Ms.Gupta told Ms.Singh that since Khem Pal was leaving the work henceforth Narender Pal will work for her as her husband had already promised Narender Pal that he will get him regular job in his office in Intelligence Bureau. This was resented to by Ms.Singh and she told Ms.Gupta that since she is a working lady and has to be away from her flat she could hardly afford to relieve Narender Pal who was working for full time for her. She also deprecated the allurement of Gupta given to Narender Pal with intent to make him leave her job. While this conversation was going on in the presence of Narender Pal in the corridor which is common passage at the second floor of the apartment block Gupta also came out in the common corridors of the second floor and suddenly started abusing Ms. Singh in the filthiest and unprintable language and shouted at her that Narender Pal will no longer work for her. In the mean time he also called his Driver from the ground floor and asked him to throw down Ms. Singh. Gupta also threatened to teach Ms. Singh a lesson which she would remember throughout her life. The conduct of Gupta was most uncivilised, more so, when he was stated to be high ranking police officer. The abuses and the gestures that Gupta made were highly derogatory and made with full intent/knowledge to outrage the modesty of Ms. Singh."
(3) MS.SINGH claims that after the incident she went to Police Station Tilak Marg at 9 Am and submitted her complaint and left the police station thereafter. The copy of the complaint said to have been made at the Police Station at 9 Am has,however, not been filed by her. She further says that at around 10.15 Am Asi Gurdeep Singh visited her residence and she apprised him of the incident and also gave complaint in writing. A copy of this complaint has been filed with the petition.
(4) The version of the incident, as stated by Gupta in his counter affidavit, in brief, is as follows:- Ms.Singh at about 9 Am entered into his apartment and started shouting at his domestic servant Khem Pal Singh on the suspicion that he was trying to entice away her domestic servant Narender Pal. Apparently Ms.Singh suspected that Gupta's servant Khem Pal Singh was leaving the job and was enticing her servant to join service of Gupta. Ms.Singh in a very aggressive mode threatened Khem Pal Singh and hurled filthy abuses. Gupta's wife,however,intervened in the matter and apprised Ms.Singh that neither Khem Pal Singh was leaving the service nor respondent No.5 was ever interested or would be interested to keep Ms.Singh's servant. This statement of Ms.Gupta, however, did not appease Ms.Singh and she kept on using the threatening, abusive and filthy language unbecoming of a civilised person. Although Gupta had heard from the neighbours regarding the quarrelsome nature of Ms.Singh yet this was Gupta's first encounter with Ms.Singh during his stay of over six and a half years in the apartment. Since Ms.Singh continued with her aggressive behavior Gupta requested her to behave and put forth her grievance only after verifying the facts. Ms.Singh, however, continued to behave in an unreasonable manner, hurling abuses and letting out threats. Gupta then asked Ms.Singh to leave his apartment. On this Ms.Singh became more aggressive and she dared Gupta to physically remove her from his apartment. Gupta thus had no choice but to summon police assistance from Police Control Room to intervene in removing the trespass. On seeing Mr.Gupta making a call for police station Ms.Singh misbehaved more violently and forcibly took away Khem Pal, the servant of Gupta and showered all sorts of abuses on Gupta and his family. Ms.Singh openly claimed her connections with the politicians and senior bureaucrats and threatened Gupta to teach a lesson (5) On the complaint of Gupta First Information Report No.478 of 1992 dated 28th September 1992 was registered under Sections 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code which was later converted into First Information Report under Section 448 Indian Penal Code Ms.Singh by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') seeks quashing of the First Information Report and resultant criminal proceedings.
(6) The writ petition was heard by Division Bench comprising of Mahindar Narain and Jaspal Singh, JJs.
(7) Mahindar Narain J. in his opinion has come to the conclusion that the incident was trivial and the principles of Section 95 Indian Penal Code were applicable and the First Information Report deserves to be quashed.
(8) IN. the opinion of Jaspal Singh J, prima facie, it could not be held when the evidence was yet to be led that the incident was trivial and has opined for dismissal of the writ petition.
(9) In view of difference of opinion learned Judges directed that the matter be placed before a larger Bench and that is how this matter has come up before us.
(10) Before we deal with the contentions of the learned counsel a few more facts may be noticed about which there does not seem to be any controversy. We may notice that before the Police could reach the spot, on Gupta having rung up the police, he had left for his office. When Si Gurdeep Singh came to the spot he could contact only Ms.Gupta and Ms. Singh. Ms.Singh handed over to Asi Gurdeep Singh at about 10.45 Am a written complaint. The said complaint reads as under:- "TOSHO, P.S. Tilak Marg, New Delhi. From: Ms.Neelam Mahajan Singh, A-506, Curzon Road Apartments, New Delhi. Sir, A.S.I. Mr.Gurdip Singh came to my residence at 10.00 hrs on the morning of 28.9.1992, on the telephonic complaint of one Mr.Ashok Kumar Gupta, resident of A-206, who, I am told by your officer, he works in Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.). After this he disappeared and did not meet the local police. I do not know what complaint he has against me. However, I would like to state the following facts:- 1. I have never known nor met Mr.Ashok Kumar Gupta or his wife, in my life, so there is no reason for me to go to their house, as he has complained to your officers. 2. The problem was about the servants, (a) my servant named Narinder Pal Singh (whose police registration has been done by your beat constable) and (b) the servant of A-206, Khempal, who was instigating my servant Narinder Pal to leave the work from me and go and work at A- 206, since Khempal, as he told me, is leaving Delhi. However, I brought both the boys face to face so that they can resolve the matter. However, a middle aged lady, who I understand was the lady of the house, told me that she will not keep Narinder Singh, my servant. So the question was of servants and not owners. 3. In the meanwhile, this fair looking bald man came and told me to "get out" while I was still in verandah only. He even refused to tell me his name and both husband and wife heckled me and abused me. "She is a mad woman," said the man and then he called his driver and told him, "Esse Utha Kar Fenko, Yeh To Pagal Aurat Hai." All this while I was talking only to the servants. It is through your good local officers that I came to know the name of this man, as one Mr.Ashok Kumar Gupta, who works in C.B.I, and, therefore, the question is for an ineloquent with servants. Can this man call the local police and threaten to "take me to task" when I did not even speak to him. 4. Sir, I would like to bring to your kind notice the telephonic conversation with your office, informing you of the offensive and "unreasonable" behavior of Mr. Gupta who wrongly called the local police to show his . "muscle" and by the time, the P.C.R. van was called, the "super cop of C.B.I. Mr.Ashok Kumar Gupta" had already left..........for the dispute of the servants to be told to the local police by his respected wife. Sir, this highhandedness of Mr.Ashok Kumar Gupta and goornish behavior calls for a serious action on him to harass, intimidate and threaten professionally qualified and extremely busy ladies like myself. By wrongly informing the police, he then played "mischief' and harassed me beyond a limit. In the purview of law he should be punished and warned not to "abuse to woman so much so if he works in C.B.I. Thanking you, sd/- (NEELAM Mahajan SINGH)"
(11) Further it seems that when Asi Gurdeep Singh visited the spot and contacted Ms. Gupta she did not attach much importance to the incident which had taken place and seems to have told Asi Gurdeep Singh that matter has been resolved. Ms.Singh, however, chose to give the aforesaid written complaint to Asi Gurdeep Singh. Later on Gupta had sent a written complaint at about 1.30PM from his office to Sho of Police Station Tilak Marg.
(12) The First Information Report against Ms.Singh was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by Gupta. It seems that though in the beginning Guptas were not interested in pursuing the matter but later, Gupta must have thought that since Ms.Singh is pursuing the matter and has made even a written complaint, if his version does not come on record, it may prejudice him and thus there is no point in ignoring the incident and treating it as closed and thus he made the complaint which led to the registration of First Information Report.
(13) The Commissioner of Police in his affidavit has deposed that at 5.30pm on 28th September 1992 Asi Gurdeep Singh got First Information Report No.478/92 registered under sections 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code However, the same evening the case was converted into section 448 of the IPC.
(14) The Deputy Commissioner of Police Mr.Asad Farooqui (respondent No.2) in the evening on 28th September, 1992 passed an order as follows:- "There is a serious complaint against Smt. Neelam Mahajan R/o Kasturba Gandhi Apartment, from Sh. A. K.Gupta, Dig, IB. You are, hereby directed to take cognizance of the complaint, register a case and arrest her in the case under intimation to me."
(15) The aforesaid order was addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Police and it appears that the Assistant Commissioner of Police marked it to the Station House Officer who marked it to the Investigating Officer Si Ashok Kumar. The Commissioner of Police states in his affidavit that the aforesaid order of Mr.Farooqui reached the police station at 8.20 pm whereas the First Information Report had already been registered against Ms. Singh.' (16) We may also make reference to the factual report dated 8th October 1992 made by the Station House Officer, Police Station Tilak Marg, New Delhi, regarding the arrest of Ms.Singh. A copy of that report has been placed on record by Ms.Singh. We do not know how she got a copy of that report. Be that as it may, the said report shows that at about 5 Pm the Assistant Commissioner of Police had ordered the Sho on the directions of Deputy Commissioner of Police to register a case against Ms.Singh under Section 452/506 Ipc and that it was on account of the "clear order of DCP/ND" that the case was registered at 5.30pm. According to that report Mr.Farooqui had not only telephonically ordered the Sho to arrest Ms.Singh but had even expressed his displeasure over the delay in effecting the arrest. It also shows that Ms.Singh was called to the police station by Mr.Farooqui on the pretext of getting the matter resolved and it was then she was put under arrest.
(17) Reference may also be made to daily diary reports No.27A and 29A. A perusal thereof shows that lady police officials as per orders of Dcp, New Delhi, had reached the police station at about 8.10pm for performing the duties and that at 9.20pm Ms.Singh was arrested but was provided the usage of office telephone by Sho regarding bail etc. (18) We may also notice that in her complaint handed over to Asi Gurdeep Singh, Ms.Singh desired serious action against Gupta for harassing, intimidating and threatening her. She alleges in para 5(h) of the petition that she personally met Balbir Singh, Sho, Police Station Tilak Marg and Acp Connaught Place at about 5.00 Pm same day to find out as to what action had been taken on her complaint. Then she learnt that Gupta had also lodged a complaint. But she was assured by both the aforesaid Officers that since it was a petty matter they were not taking any action on the basis of the complaint filed by Gupta and, therefore, she came back to her flat. This prima facie shows that she was more interested in seeing that no action is taken on the complaint of Gupta against her. Otherwise we do not find any reason for her coming back satisfied from the Police Station after being assured that no action was being taken on the complaint of Gupta. She could very well insist even at that time that a firm action betaken upon her complaint against Gupta. It has not been argued that the police authorities for any ulterior purposes were not taking any action upon the complaint made by Ms.Singh.
(19) Keeping in view the background of the case as noticed hereinbefore we would now revert to the contentions of Mr. Shali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Two contentions have been raised by learned counsel. Firstly, it is contended that the complaints actuated by malice of the police, particularly of Mr.Farooqui who had acted with over zealousness and that the entire investigation smacks of mala fide exercise of power. It is- urged that Gupta took advantage of his position and got a false case registered through another member of police force, namely, Mr.Farooqui and that it was on account of pressure tactics adopted by them Ms.Singh was arrested and subjected to harassment. It is further urged that Ms.Singh was asked by Mr.Farooqui to visit the police station by misrepresenting that he will get the matter settled though his intention was to get Ms.Singh arrested. It is claimed that the complaint was made by Gupta merely as a counter blast to the complaint of Ms.Singh. Secondly, it is contended that the incident was trivial and section 95 lPC would be attracted and thus the incident is liable to be ignored as the law does not take account of trifles and in view of section 95 lPC there would be no offence. It is claimed that harm, if any, caused from the alleged incident was so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.
(20) We will take up the second contention first. The offence alleged to have been committed is of criminal trespass. The First Information Report has been registered against the petitioner under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed criminal trespass. Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code which defines criminal trespass reads as under:- Section 441: "Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession-of such property; or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass."
(21) In short the complaint of Gupta is that Ms.Singh walked into his flat, misbehaved with him and hurled various abuses and left only after Gupta rang up the police. The version of the incident as given by Gupta in the counter affidavit has been noticed above. Since the First Information Report was registered against Ms.Singh on the basis of the complaint of Gupta it may be useful to extract Gupta's version in his own words as given in the complaint which reads as under:- "This morning (around 09.00 hours) one Ms.Neelam Mahajan, a resident of A-506, Curzon Road Apartments trespassed into my apartment (A-206) and started shouting on my domestic servant Khem Pal Singh for his alleged attempt to entice away her domestic servant. According to her, Khem Pal Singh asked her domestic servant to work in A-206 as he himself (Khem Pal Singh) was going to join some other job. She kept on threatening and abusing my domestic servant using unprintable unparliamentary language. She in the process also indirectly threatened and abused me and my wife. I told her to behave herself and not to make such a scene in my house. If she has any problem with my servant, she could first check the facts but it did not have any impact on her and she continued abusing in an aggressive mood. I then asked her to leave my house but she refused. In the meantime I rang up 100 and asked for police assistance. 2. Before the police from Control Room came, she was told by her domestic servant that he was not asked by anybody to work in A-206. She at this lost her temper on her own servant and threatened him and forcibly took away my servant out of my house. When I wanted my servant to return she started misbehaving with me. She behaved in a most obnoxious manner showering all sorts of abuses on me and my family and created a scene. She obviously took advantage of her being a woman and my inability to come down to her level. 3. It may be mentioned that I have been staying in Curzon Road apartments since June 1986 and Ms.Neelam Mahajan has been staying there much longer. However, there have been a number of instances of misbehavior, violent and other obnoxious conduct on her part from time to time and I am sure the old police records or residents of Curzon Road Apartments should corroborate this. She boasts of her connections with some politicians and senior bureaucrats and has threatened to teach me a lesson. 4. You are,therefore, requested that necessary action be taken to restrain her and to compel her to behave in a civilised and decent manner. In the interest of peace and tranquility of the area, Ministry of Urban Development should be recommended to get the apartment vacated from her. Yours faithfully, (A.K.GUPTA) IPS"
(22) For the offence of criminal trespass the necessary ingredients are entry into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property. It would also be an offence if the entry into or upon such property is lawful, then unlawfully remaining there with intent to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an offence. The law, however, does not take into account the trifles. Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code which deals with trifles reads as under:- Section 95: "Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm."
(23) Mr. Aggarwal contended that defense of triviality can be set up by the petitioner only before the Magistrate and in law it cannot be a ground for quashing the First Information Report and also that 'triviality' has not been pleaded in the petition as a ground seeking quashing of First Information Report. Section 95 Indian Penal Code is part of Chapter Iv of Ipc dealing with general exceptions. Mr.Aggarwal is right in his submission that the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the general exceptions in the Indian Penal Code is upon the person who pleads such an exception and that it is a weapon of defense and also that there is presumption of the absence of such circumstances (Section 105 of the Evidence Act). However, every definition of an offence in the Indian Penal Code is to be understood subject to the exceptions contained in Chapter Iv (Section 6, IPC). The fact that there is presumption about the absence of existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section 95, Indian Penal Code, does not mean that if, on admitted facts, it is shown that the offence is trivial and thereby covered under Section 95 Indian Penal Code, the accused has still to be left to face the ordeal of the full fledged trial and this court has no jurisdiction to quash the First Information Report even after reaching a conclusion, on admitted facts, that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. It is also not possible to accept the contention of Mr.Aggarwal that the petitioner has not pleaded triviality as a ground for quashing the First Information Report. In these natters the pleadings cannot be construed in the strict and hyper technical manner. The question whether the harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm is required to be judged and inferred from the facts pleaded. The petitioner has pleaded all necessary facts and has also stated in the petition that she was assured by respondents 3 and 4 that it was a 'petty' matter and they are not taking any action on the basis of the complaint filed by Gupta and she could go home. She also says that 'it is further stated that it was at best a minor trifle on the part of the petitioner for a valid cause as compared to the serious wrong on the part of respondent No.5 .............'. We, thus, do not find any substance in the contention of Mr.Aggarwal.
(24) MR.AGGARWAL, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 also raised an objection to maintainability of the petition urging that in view of filing of the challan this petition was not maintainable and this court has no jurisdiction to quash First Information Report in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The challan was filed in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate after filing of this writ petition. The writ petition was filed on 3rd November, 1992. Along with it was also filed an application (Cr.Misc.481/92) seeking stay of investigation in respect of First Information Report No.478/92. No orders were made on the application for stay. The Division Bench commenced hearing arguments from 9th February 1993 and then from 2nd March, 1993 onward from almost day to day and that seems to be the reason for the Bench not making any orders on Cr.Misc. 481/92. The challan was filed on 20th February 1993. Would, under these circumstances, the filing of the challan take away the constitutional power of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ quashing First Information Report and criminal proceedings? Article 226 of the Constitution confers extraordinary jurisdiction on the High Court to issue appropriate 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. The width of the power requires it to be exercised with circumspection within the bonds of self imposed discipline. In support of the contention that the petition was not maintainable as the challan had been filed before the Magistrate strong reliance was placed by Mr.Aggarwal on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & another Vs. P.P.Sharma & another, . It would be useful to reproduce from P.P.Sharma's case the observations made by Kuldip Singh, J.:- "31. Finally, we are at a loss to understand as to why and on what reasoning the High Court assumed extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India at a stage when the Special Judge was seized of the matter. He had heard the arguments on the question of cognizance and had reserved the orders. The High Court did not even permit the Special Judge to pronounce the orders. 32. The Directors of the firm who are also accused persons in this case had approached the Rajasthan High Court for the quashing of the Fir and prosecution against them. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition with the following order:- "Sri Bhandari states that in this matter Chalan has already been filed in court. The writ petition has, therefore, become infructuous. The writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs." 33. The above order was brought to the notice of the Patna High Court but the High Court refused to be persuaded to adopt the same course. We are of the considered view that at a stage when the police report under S. 173, Criminal Procedure Code . has been forwarded to the Magistrate after completion of investigation and the material collected by the investigating officer is under the gaze of judicial scrutiny, the High Court would do well to discipline itself not to undertake quashing proceedings at that stage in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. We could have set aside the High Court judgment on this ground alone but elaborate argument having been addressed by learned counsel for the parties we thought it proper to deal with all the aspects of the case."
(25) In P.P.Sharma's case grave allegations of corruption had been made; earlier writ petition filed in Patna High Court had been withdrawn; the Special Judge, Patna, had heard arguments of the parties on various dates on the question as to whether there 'was sufficient material in the police reports to take cognizance of various offences projected therein and had reserved the orders and the writ petition of another accused seeking quashing of the same First Information Report had been dismissed by Rajasthan High Court as infructuous. Having regard to these and other facts the Supreme Court observed:- "High Court would do well to discipline itself not to undertake quashing proceedings at that stage in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction."
(26) These observations do not show that the High Court will have no jurisdiction to grant relief under Article 226 once challan had been filed in court. The aforesaid observations show that after filing of the challan the High Court has to be very careful and cautious to grant discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus. the question is not of lack of jurisdiction or right of petitioner to maintain the petition though the High Court may in appropriate cases refuse to quash the First Information Report and criminal proceedings after the challan had been filed. It would depend on facts and circumstances of each case whether First Information Report and criminal proceedings after filing of challan deserved to be quashed or not. Further, if the contention of Mr.Aggarwal is accepted it would mean that the State can make a petition infructuous by filing challan during the pendency of the petition. It is no answer to say that the High Court can grant stay of investigation and filing of the challan. We fail to understand if High Court can stay investigation and then quash First Information Report, why it cannot quash the same after filing of challan. It is also to be borne in mind that ordinarily courts are reluctant to make an order staying the investigation and filing of the challan. In the present case too, instead of making order on Cr.Misc. 481/92 the Bench started hearing arguments. We may also reproduce the observations made by K.Ramaswamy, J. in concurring judgment in P.P.Sharma's case to the following effect:- "Undoubtedly the arms of the High Court are long enough, when it exercises its prerogative discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, to reach injustice wherever it is found in the judicial or quasi-judicial process of any court or Tribunal or authority within its jurisdiction. But it is hedged with self imposed limitations.When and under what circumstances would a High Court be justified to quash the charge-sheet even before cognizance of the offence was taken by the criminal court is the crucial question, in particular on mala fides of the complaint or investigating officer and on merits."
(27) It is evident from the above analysis that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ to undo injustice is not affected or taken away by mere act of filing of the challan in the court of the Magistrate but the said power is required to be exercised with circumspection and is hedged with self imposed restrictions. Reference may also be made to decision of the Supreme Court in Janata Dal Vs. H. S. Chowdhary and others, holding that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the powers requires great caution in its exercise. Whether facts justify granting relief of quashing would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any generalisation.
(28) The legal position,therefore, is that there is no restriction or limitation in the exercise of the power of the High Court to issue prerogative writ under Article 226 to quash the First information Report or criminal proceedings after filing of the challan but the said power is required to be exercised with utmost care and caution. These powers of High Court are not taken away by filing of challan.
(29) Reverting to the incident there is no doubt that it had taken place involving Ms. Singh and her servant on the one hand and Gupta, his wife and servant on the other hand. According to each person other hurled abuses. According to Ms.Singh the incident took place in the verandah but we would assume, as Gupta says, that the incident took place inside his flat. The genesis of the incident was the servants of Ms.Singh and Gupta. It is not the case of any of the parties that any damage to the person of Gupta was caused or any physical assault or injury resulted to him, his wife or his servant. What filthy abuses in fact were hurled by Ms.Singh has not been stated in the complaint. From the complaint of Gupta extracted above, it is seen that Gupta had desired that necessary action be taken to restrain Ms.Singh and to compel her to behave in a civilised and decent manner and he sought that in the interest of peace and tranquility of the area the Ministry of Urban Development should be requested to get the apartment vacated from her. Gupta did not say that- First Information Report be registered against Ms.Singh for her having committed any offence much less criminal trespass. Gupta, it seems, was compelled to adopt this course of sending the complaint so as to place on record his version, as it seems, that the petitioner was not treating the matter closed and was pursuing her complaint. While considering whether an act which amounts to an offence is trivial or not, the nature of the injury, the position of the parties, the knowledge or intention with which the offending act is done and other related circumstances are required to be seen. The Supreme Court in Mrs. Veeda Menezes Vs. Yusuf Khan Haji lbrahim Khan and another, was considering a case where a complaint had been lodged with the police complaining of house trespass where the complainant was hit at the elbow causing a scratch and the servant of the complainant had been slapped by the accused and it had been found by the trial court that simple injuries were caused to the servant and to the complainant and for causing those injuries the accused was convicted of an offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. l0.00 . The High Court in revision came to the conclusion that the injuries were trivial and the case was one in which the injury intended to be caused was so slight that a person of ordinary sense and temper would not complain of the harm caused thereby and accordingly set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused. Upholding the decision of the High Court, the Supreme Court said:- "The next question is whether, having regard to the circumstances, the harm caused to the appellant and to her servant Robert was so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. Section 95 is intended to prevent penalisation of negligible wrongs or of offences of trivial character. Whether an act which amounts to an offence is trivial would undoubtedly depend upon the nature of the injury, the position of the parties, the knowledge or interation with which the offending act is done, and other related circumstances. There can be no absolute standard or degree of harm which may be regarded as so slight that a person of ordinary sense and temper would not complain of the harm. It cannot be judged solely by the measure of physical or other injury the act causes. A soldier assaulting his colonel, a policeman assaulting his Superintendent, or a pupil beating his teacher, commit offences, the heniousness of which cannot be determined merely by the actual injury suffered by the officer or the teacher, for the assault would be wholly subversive of discipline. An assault by one child or another, or even by a grown-up person on another, which causes injury may still be regarded as so slight, having regard to the way and station of life of the parties, relation between them, situation in which the parties are placed, and other circumstances in which harm is caused, that the victim ordinarily may not complain of the harm."
(30) In Bindeswari Prasad Singh Vs. Kali Singh, 1978 Cr.L.J. 187, while holding that the Magistrate had no power to recall the order dismissing the complaint as there was no provision for recalling or reviewing the order and that the Sub Divisional Magistrate had become functus officio after dismissal of the complaint it was observed by Supreme Court that the complaint itself contains allegations of a very petty nature, of which hardly any cognizance could have been taken and which would be a trivial act under Indian Penal Code for which no criminal proceedings could be taken. These observations were made in the context of the facts where there were proceedings under Section 107 between the parties and both the parties applied for copies of the said proceedings on 20th December, 1965. The complainant had alleged that the appellant got the copy which was meant for complainant by signing his name. In fact the complainant also go this copy a few days after eventually. Though strictly and technically speaking it could be said to be a case of forgery but having regard to the allegations as noticed above the Supreme Court observed that it was trivial under Section 95 IPC.
(31) Applying to the facts of the present case the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in aforesaid decisions we have no doubt that, this case would be covered by Section 95 Indian Penal Code The entire episode emanated because of misunderstanding about the servants. No physical assault or injury resulted to anyone. The alleged filthy abuses buried by Ms.Singh have not been mentioned in the complaint. The incident seems to have taken place because of tempers running high at the spur of the moment. As noticed above, it seems that initially Gupta was not interested in registration of the case against Ms. Singh. Considering the social status of the parties, the knowledge or intention with which the offending act was done and other related circumstances noticed hereinbefore, it is clear to us that the harm caused to Gupta was so slight that a person of ordinary sense and temper would not complain of such a harm.
(32) Before parting with aspect of triviality, we may notice that our conclusion that the incident was trivial should not be understood to mean that we are putting a seal of approval on the conduct of Ms.Singh. Assuming Ms.Singh had any grievance, she should not have gone to the flat of Gupta and further assuming, in her discretion she thought it appropriate to go to the flat of Gupta, she as is expected of a decent and civilised person had no right to . hurl abuses on anyone. We would leave the matter at that and say no more on this aspect.
(33) We may also say a few words about the ground of mala fides. From the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of P.P.Sharma and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors,. it seems to be well settled proposition of law that the malafides of the complainant are to be seen while considering the prayer for quashing on the ground of malafides and not the illegality or irregularity which may have crept up during the course of investigation. If the dominant purpose of the complainant in filing the complaint is malafide the court would be justified in quashing the First Information Report. In the present case, admittedly, Gupta did not even know Ms.Singh. There was no previous animosity between the two. The fact that Gupta and his wife had initially ignored the incident as trivial and did not pursue it with the police shows the bona fides of Gupta rather than to show his malafides. Gupta had no option but to lodge the complaint after learning that Ms.Singh was not treating the matter as closed. A reasonable person is likely to think that remaining quiet and not placing on record his version may at a later stage be interpreted to his detriment or prejudice. Under these circumstances the filing of the complaint by Gupta cannot be said to be counterblast with a view to wreck vengeance. Though it does seem to us that Mr.Farooqui, respondent No. 2 did show over zealousness in making the unusual order, on the facts of the present case, directing the arrest of Ms.Singh and calling her to the Police Station on the pretext that he will get the matter settled. For the reasons best known Mr.Farooqui has not filed any affidavit in reply to the writ petition. In view of our conclusion that there does not appear to be any malafides on the part of Gupta the effect of over zealousness exhibited by Mr.Farooqui is not necessary to be examined in any further detail, more so, when in our view the incident was trivial.
(34) For the aforesaid reasons, we would allow the writ petition and quash the First Information Report No-478/92 as also the resultant criminal proceedings on the filing of the challan. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we would leave the parties to bear their own costs.
Comments
Post a Comment