The Delhi High Court has recently quashed an FIR lodged over an alleged acid attack on a woman by another woman.
The high court stated that there is a property dispute between the parties, and therefore the FIR was lodged in a malafide manner.
The FIR was registered at Shalimar Marg police station in 2017.
Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the FIR after considering the status report of the Delhi police, the medico-legal case of the victim, and submissions made on behalf of both parties.
Justice Bansal stated, “I am satisfied that the present FIR has been filed in a malafide manner on account of the dispute between the parties relating to the property where they reside.”
He added that the allegations made in the FIR are inherently improbable, and no material has been collected in the course of the investigation in support of the allegations against the petitioner.
The bench termed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner a misuse of process by the court. It also reiterated the contention of the respondent or victim that a charge sheet has been filed and therefore the FIR can’t be quashed.
Justice Bansal observed, “The judicial conscience of this Court is satisfied that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are a misuse of the process of the Court and an unnecessary burden on the State exchequer and ought to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers vested under Section 482 of the CrPC.”
“I didn’t find merit in the submission of respondent no. 2 that once a chargesheet has been filed, a petition for quashing the FIR can’t be filed,” Justice Bansal stated in the judgement passed on November 8.
Referring to an earlier judgement by the Supreme Court, the High Court stated, “It is a settled principle of law that an FIR can be quashed even after filing of the chargesheet. The powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC are wide and can be exercised at any stage to prevent abuse of process by the court or to secure the needs of justice.”
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 judgment said.
Justice Bansal added that in order to achieve this, the High Court can take into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the material collected in the course of the investigation. Of course, while exercising the aforesaid powers, the High Court must exercise due caution, care, and circumspection.
The petitioner, Rashmi Kansal, moved a petition that has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR dated July 4, 2017 under Sections 326-B/506 of the IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh.
It was the case of the petitioner that she is the sister-in-law of the respondent or victim, and both reside on common property.
The petitioner and her husband reside on the ground floor, while respondent no. 2 and her family reside on the second floor of the said property.
