Facts of the Case:
In the case, an FIR was filed on 15th September 2021, based on a statement from the complainant, Jagdeep Singh. According to the complainant, the petitioner had a longstanding enmity with his father since 2008. The petitioner, along with his associates, allegedly filed a false rape case against the complainant in 2019 to extort Rs. 14 lakhs from him and seek revenge due to this enmity. The police investigated and declared the complainant innocent in that case.
The complainant also claimed that in 2020, the petitioner informed him about a girl, ‘S’ who was demanding money through blackmail. As the complainant was an advocate, he advised the petitioner to file a case against her under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner allegedly helped her to get bail and then instigated her to file a false case against the complainant. However, ‘S’ only accused Gurjit Singh (not the complainant) in a rape case, which was later canceled as false. The complainant asserted that the petitioner was now demanding Rs. 14 lakhs from him and threatening to file another false rape case if he didn’t comply. Consequently, the police registered the present FIR under Sections 384, 511, and 506 IPC.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the complainant failed to disclose in his complaint the previous application filed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) and the orders related to it. This omission was significant because such applications require specific mention of previous applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C., along with a supporting affidavit. The complainant had also been summoned in proceedings under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., which suggests that the allegations of falsely implicating him were not valid.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the allegations of demanding Rs. 14 lakhs and threatening the complainant were vague, lacked specific details, and did not constitute an offense. They claimed that these allegations were made with mala fide intent to harass the petitioner and were part of an attempt to influence the witness, ‘R,’ who had previously given evidence against the complainant.
Analytics of the Case:
In analyzing the case, the court found that the FIR covered incidents from October 10, 2019, to September 15, 2021, and included two main incidents. The first incident related to a false rape case registered in 2019, in which the complainant was also accused. The complainant had previously filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, ‘R,’ and others, alleging that he falsely implicated in that case. The court observed that the FIR’s allegations were vague and did not establish any offense under Sections 506, 384, and 511 IPC.
Based on this analysis and taking into account relevant legal precedents, the court concluded that the FIR should be quashed. The court found that the allegations were not supported by sufficient evidence and that the FIR lacked a substantial basis for proceeding. Furthermore, the court had access to all necessary materials to make this determination without relying on the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.