Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

Latest Legal News