By Adv. R. S. Agrawal 

 

THROUGH the judgement in the case –Mr Vijay Choudhary v. State of Maharashtra and another, delivered on August 11, 2023, Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Shivkumar Dige, at the Bombay High Court, have quoted illustrations from categories No. 6 and 7 of the criminal cases provided by the Supreme Court in its judgment- State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal- 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which can be quashed by the High Courts under the inherent power available to them on application of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The HC has pointed out that in the Paragraph 102 of the said judgement, the SC has stated that against the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the CrPC under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by the SC, in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the inherent powers under section 482 of the CrPC, it has provided certain categories of cases, by way of illustration, wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kind of cases, wherein such power should be exercised: 1.

 

Where the allegations made in the First Information Report (FIR) or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the FIR and other materials , if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognisable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC.)except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155(2) of the CrPC. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognisable offence, but constitute only a non-cognisable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the CrPC. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the CrPC or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the CrPC or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7.

 

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and /or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. The petitioner, in the case, who is Vice President-Human Resources, Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Gurgaon, has filed this criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of the FIR of August 24, 2016 under sections 354-A and 509 of the IPC registered with the Police Station Bhandup in Mumbai, based on the report by the informant –respondent, Hetal Desai. The HC has noted that by an order of October 5, 2017, the HC had granted ad-interim relief in favour of the petitioner. By a subsequent order on January 16, 2018, the petition was admitted. Ad interim relief granted on October 5, 2017 was confirmed as interim relief. The informant had lodged the report stating that she is residing with her husband at the address mentioned by her. She was working as a Center Manager of the Max Life Insurance Company for the last about one year, prior to lodging of FIR. The petitioner, who is her Company’s Vice President, stays at Delhi for the office work and comes to the company’s Mumbai office from time to time for office work. In the report her allegation was that on May 20, 2016, at about 10 am the petitioner had been to her office for meeting. After meeting, at about 2.30 pm and 3 pm, the petitioner went to the desk of the informant. He was continuously staring at her, so she asked him ‘How Can I help you Sir’, on this, he said that, ‘you are looking sexy and gorgeous’. On the said comment of petitioner, the informant retorted to him ‘behave yourself ‘. Due to that, the petitioner had turned angry and torn her paper nameplate on her desk.

 

While leaving the place, allegedly the petitioner had threatened her by saying ‘I will fix you, bitch’, abused her and left her office. At that relevant time, four to five of her colleagues working in the office were present there. Amongst them, Tanveer Khan and Nirmal Paul had witnessed the entire incident. The HC has noted that there is delay of about three months in lodging the report of this crime. Perusal of record clearly shows that the FIR lodged by the informant is full of improvements and suppression of material facts which are on record and according to the HC, had been lodged with mala fide intention, only to harass the petitioner. After applying category No. 6 and 7 of the illustrations provided by the SC in the Bhajanlal’s case, in support, the HC has been of the considered view that, continuation of further investigation in the FIR lodged by the respondent- Hetal Desai would be sheer abuse of process of law and needs to be quashed in the interest of Justice.