Delhi High Court Quashes FIR against Afghan Refugee ‘Manifestly Frivolous’ and instituted with ‘Ulterior Motive’

116
0
Share:
fir bail transport pay Public T20 World Cup v Pay Video School company Human Rape Sexual Taxable Evidence Tax Statement property students Policy Bail Bail cheques Police Accident Service Claim Trademark Cognizance smuggling NI Eviction Agreement Minister Acid spa Old Delhi HC MBBS DivorceLand Child Evidence Bail Senior Marriage Maintenance Application Property Exam Evidence Divorce doctrine pocso award Medical public Income Tax constable National bailUniversity Property Recovery Evidence Adopted v Payment territorial corporation Bail liability police bank Constitutionality child nature claim domestic Limitation bsnl traffic property railway legal landlords Relationship Citizen property Tax custody phonetic predicate Acquisition forum public asset tax wire eligibility violence physical financial second trademark person Corpus Director TDS policy entertainment parody games recovery 14 tax judiciary claims court bar 34 Raps advertisement employees salary mother rape decisions students 138 divorce bail CBI fir evidence evidence eviction drc lower doctors legal investigation civil copyright

In a landmark ruling, the High Court has quashed an FIR filed against an accused on charges of molestation and criminal intimidation. The Court held that the criminal proceedings were “manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with ulterior motive.”

“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 offence are made out or not,” the judge observed, referring to the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. [Para 17]

The case revolved around two separate complaints filed against the accused by a doctor running her own clinic. The first complaint dated 13th July 2021 accused the defendant of forgery and theft, while the subsequent complaint dated 10th September 2021, filed by the same complainant, alleged molestation and criminal intimidation.

“A perusal of the two complaints clearly demonstrates that the respondent no.2 has substantially improved the allegations made in her first complaint while filing the second one,” the judge noted, adding that an “entirely new case” had been set up in the second complaint. [Para 23]

Questioning the credibility of the complainants, the Court further stated, “This is not one of the cases where the complainant was hesitant to go before the police and make a complaint regarding a sexual offence. The respondents no.2 and 3 are educated doctors and filed a complaint immediately after the alleged incident.” [Para 24]

Interestingly, the Court noted that no explanation was provided as to why the respondent had not shared the CCTV footage of the alleged incident with the police. “Only an oral submission has been made in the course of the hearing by the counsel for the respondent no.2 and 3 that the CCTV camera in respect of the place where the incident took place was not working,” the judge said. [Para 27]

In light of these observations, the High Court quashed the FIR and charge sheet filed against the accused, calling upon all courts and police authorities to strictly follow the law laid down in precedent cases.

This judgment is being seen as a significant reminder of the caution that must be exercised in initiating criminal proceedings, and it underscores the powers of the High Court to quash proceedings that are found to be baseless or motivated by vengeance.

Date of Decision: September 18, 2023

RAMEZ FAQIRI vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Download Judgment

Share: