Ved Parkash v. State Of Haryana And Another, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 142 dated 07.08.2012 registered at Police Station Sector 40, Gurgaon, under Section 506 IPC. The FIR originated from a complaint by respondent no. 2, who alleged that the petitioner, his brother, threatened him over a telephone call to withdraw a pending case in the Rohini Court. The complainant stated that the petitioner and an unknown person threatened to eliminate him and his family if he did not withdraw the case. The petitioner contended that the FIR was based solely on the complainant’s statement without corroboration and was inherently improbable. The case involves prior litigation between the parties, including a criminal case filed by the petitioner against respondent no. 2, which was dismissed after investigation.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the FIR registered under Section 506 IPC based on telephonic threats should be quashed for lack of corroboration and inherent improbability.

Whether the strained relationship and prior litigation between the parties affect the credibility of the allegations in the FIR.

The applicability of precedents regarding quashing of FIRs on the basis of telephonic conversations and the threshold for abuse of process of law.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner is the brother of the complainant, and there is extensive prior litigation between them.

The FIR is based solely on the complainant’s statement without any corroborative evidence.

The allegations are absurd and inherently improbable, warranting quashing of the FIR.

Relied on the observations in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Sajjal Agarwal v. State of A.P. to support the petition for quashing.

State Counsel’s Arguments

The FIR was investigated and call details confirmed that the telephonic conversation took place between the petitioner and the complainant.

The petitioner had previously filed a false criminal case against the complainant.

Given the strained relations, the call was not friendly and the allegations require trial court scrutiny.

The FIR is not an abuse of process and should not be quashed at this stage.

Referenced a police report showing the petitioner had falsely implicated multiple persons in other FIRs.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1991 (1) RCR (Criminal) 383	Guidelines for quashing FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when allegations are absurd or inherently improbable.	The court held that the observations in this case were not applicable as the FIR was not found to be absurd or inherently improbable on its face.
Sajjal Agarwal v. State of A.P., 2012 (7) RCR (Criminal) 1871	Consideration of telephonic calls and conversations in determining the existence of offences under Sections 506 and 507 IPC.	The court noted the precedent but distinguished it on facts, as that case involved a matrimonial dispute and no offence was made out on telephonic threats.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1991 (1) RCR (Criminal) 383

Guidelines for quashing FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when allegations are absurd or inherently improbable.

The court held that the observations in this case were not applicable as the FIR was not found to be absurd or inherently improbable on its face.

Sajjal Agarwal v. State of A.P., 2012 (7) RCR (Criminal) 1871

Consideration of telephonic calls and conversations in determining the existence of offences under Sections 506 and 507 IPC.

The court noted the precedent but distinguished it on facts, as that case involved a matrimonial dispute and no offence was made out on telephonic threats.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the strained familial relations and prior litigations between the parties, noting that the petitioner had earlier filed a criminal case against the complainant which was dismissed after investigation. The court observed that the FIR’s allegations were based on the complainant’s statement supported by call records showing a telephonic conversation of about six minutes. The court found no basis to hold the FIR as absurd or inherently improbable such that it should be quashed at this stage. It emphasized that the reliability and corroboration of the complainant’s statement are matters for the trial court to determine based on evidence. The court distinguished the cited precedents by explaining that the facts of those cases differ materially from the present case. The court also considered a police report indicating the petitioner’s history of filing false FIRs but did not find it decisive to quash the present FIR. Ultimately, the court held that the FIR was not an abuse of process of law and the matter should proceed to trial.

Holding and Implications

The petition for quashing the FIR is dismissed.

The direct effect of this decision is that the FIR registered against the petitioner under Section 506 IPC will continue and be subject to trial. The court clarified that its observations do not constitute any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the factual and evidentiary issues to be adjudicated by the trial court. No new precedent was established by this decision.

Ved Parkash v. State Of Haryana And Another

Surinder Gupta, J.:— The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of FIR No. 142 dated 07.08.2012 (Annexure P-1) alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, registered for offences punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Sector 40, Gurgaon.

2. Above FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent no. 2, which reads as follows:—

“I am residing at Flat No. A-2, 101, World SPA East, Sector 30/31, Gurgaon since last 30 months. I have 4 brothers. I being the eldest, next was late Ranbir Singh, next Satbir Yadav, then Ved Prakash and Jai Bhagwan and families of all the brothers are residing separately and are having separate business. My brother Ved Prakash is very jealous of me due to my progress in the business. He became more jealous towards me as the time progressed and he always used to expect monetary help from me. That in the year 1983 I gave Rs. 3 lacs to my brother Ved Prakash on credit. But he did not return and when I demanded my money back Ved Prakash got angry and he started filing false and fictitious cases against me in the Courts of Delhi but all were dismissed. Finding no alternative I filed a petition/case in the Court of Rohini against Ved Prakash to the effect that he should be restrained to file false and bogus cases and that particular case is pending in the Court of 102, Rohini and the next date of hearing is 9th August, 2012. That yesterday on dated 12.07.2012 at 10.36 p.m. I was at my house and I got a call from Ved Prakash from Mobile No. 9811073002, wherein he was threatening me that if I don't take the case back, which is coming on hearing on 09.08.2012, he will get me and my family members eliminated. He was also using abusive language and during the course of discussion he has handed over the phone to some unknown guy who has also threatened to kill me if I don't withdraw the case. He also stated that he is a very known and big goonda of the area. Both of them thus have put me under fear of threat and commit extortion. After hearing all this I was very frightened and did not report the matter in the night being odd hours and now I am moving this application with you so that you can take necessary action against my brother Ved Prakash and the other guy. I am fearing for my life and am very much worried that he might harm me or my family members. The address of my brother was 39, Deepali, Pritampura, Delhi. Thanking you, Your's sincerely Dharamvir Singh Rao s/o Shiv Chand Yadav. 9810004929.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is brother of respondent no. 2. There has been a lot of litigation pending between the petitioner and respondent no. 2. The allegation levelled by the respondent no. 2-complainant pertained to a conversation on telephone. The entire case is based on statement of respondent no. 2-complainant without any corroboration. This FIR is based on absurd and inherently improbable allegations, as such, is required to be quashed. He has relied on observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1991 (1) RCR (Criminal) 383 and of Andhra Pradesh High Cout in case of Sajjal Agarwal v. State of A.P., 2012 (7) RCR (Criminal) 1871.

4. Learned State counsel has argued that allegations in the FIR were investigated and found to be correct. The call details were obtained, which proved that telephonic conversation took place between the petitioner and respondent no. 2-complainant. This fact is not denied that the petitioner had earlier filed a criminal case against respondent no. 2-complainant, which was found to be false. Relations between the parties were strained. In these circumstances, call made by petitioner to respondent no. 2 could not be a friendly call. It will be for the trial Court to see as to whether statement of complainant is reliable and the offences alleged against the accused are duly proved? Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case FIR registered by the police of Police Station Sector 40, Gurgaon is not an abuse of process of law, calling for its quashing.

5. Admittedly, relations between the parties were strained. Petitioner had filed a criminal case against respondent no. 2 in which after investigation he was found innocent. Later, trial Court summoned respondent no. 2 on application of prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and all the accused named in that case were acquitted. As argued by learned counsel for petitioner there is criminal and other litigation pending between the parties and in the circumstances inference without evidence on record cannot be drawn that the petitioner had made a friendly call and the allegations levelled by respondent no. 2 are false on the face of it. This fact can be ascertained by the trial Court on the basis of evidence before it. Observations in the case of Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra) are not applicable to the present case. There is nothing to infer that allegations in the FIR are absurd or 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. The call details, which form part of the challan, show that the petitioner had made about six minutes call to respondent no. 2-complainant on the relevant date. As to whether statement of complainant in support of his allegations has been in corroboration or is reliable, is a fact to be seen by the trial Court on the basis of evidence produced before it. In the case of Sajjal Agarwal (supra), there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble Single Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that no offence under Sections 506 and 507 IPC on the basis of telephonic call and conversation was not made out.

6. Learned State counsel has also drawn my attention towards report of Deputy Commissioner of Police (South), Delhi Police dated 05.05.2010, which shows that the petitioner had got recorded several FIRs against various persons. He is a builder and businessman and as per above report has falsely implicated 23 persons named in the report.

7. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that nothing observed in this petition will be taken as opinion on merits of the case by the trial Court.

CRM-M-36095 of 2012 (O&M)

Ved Parkash v. State Of Haryana And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

State Counsel’s Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Ved Parkash v. State Of Haryana And Another

Comments