A high court, after being convinced that a case prima facie does not constitute any offence and no preliminary evidence to justify any FIR filed, has the inherent power under Section 482 to quash that FIR and stop initiation of prosecution against the accused, This was held in the case of Vishal Tandon and Ors. v. State of Delhi [CRL.REV.P. 1025-27 of 2019 & Crl.M.A. 36929/2019] in the High Court of Delhi by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait.
The facts of the case are that Hari Tandon i.e. petitioner who is co-owner of the disputed property and was in exclusive possession of entire undivided property. The property came to be in possession and occupation of his three sons on the basis of Will. Brothers of Hari Pal Singh sold their respective shares in the suit property vide Registered Sale Deed to two men. The appelant challenged the validity and legality of sale deeds by way of filing a Civil Suit. Appellant filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. This dipsute escalated into personal rivalry. The petitioner, wife of property owner in dispute, accused the respondent that he raped her and that too on instigation of other respondents. The petition is filed in this regard.
The counsel for respondent submits that as per the Will, appellant-plaintiff and respondent acquired equal shares in the suit property. This was a simple suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. The FIR is baseless with no preliminary evidence to support the allegation made. For this it relied on the dictum of Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal: [(1979) 3 SCC 4], wherein it has held “at the stage of framing of charge the Trial Court has the power to sift and weigh evidence though for a limited purpose and finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out”.
It is settled law that the Court should refrain from quashing FIR on the ground that allegations made in FIR were false. However, when FIR is lodged with mala fide with motives to wreck vengeance, the Courts have interfered as an exceptional matter and quashed the FIRs. Another case also relied by the court was State vs. Arun Kumar & Anr.[2014 SCC Online SC 1018], it was held by Supreme Court “even at the stage of charge, if two views are possible and one of the views gives rise to suspicion only as distinct, from grave suspicion, the Court would be empowered to discharge accused at that stage”
The court went on to say that “To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section – 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges leveled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations.
