Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Saturday, November 23, 2024

False FIRs Becoming A Trend: Punjab and Haryana HC

Posted in: Criminal Law
Mon, Mar 20, 23, 16:50, 2 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 6273
Varun Bagga vs Punjab how it has become a common practice to abuse the legal system by filing fictitious FIRs in order to please one’s ego, which ultimately results in the wastage of the taxpayer funds because of the false FIR that were filed by the complainant.

While displaying absolute zero tolerance for the increasing most dangerous, despicable, dastardly and derisive trend seen so commonly and frequently at the drop of a hat these days of filing false, frivolous and fictitious FIRs to just satisfy one’s false ego and settle personal scores by blatantly making a complete mockery of the ‘rule of law’, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest oral judgment titled Varun Bagga vs State of Punjab & Another in CRM-M-16236-2022 that was pronounced as recently as on February 21, 2023 noted how it has become a common practice to abuse the legal system by filing fictitious FIRs in order to please one’s ego, which ultimately results in the wastage of the taxpayer funds because of the false FIR that were filed by the complainant.

We must definitely note here that the High Court ordered the complainant, who first slapped the petitioner in full public place and not stopping here then just to suffice her ego stooped so low to such an abysmal level to the extent of lodging FIR and then compromised the matter to pay a very hefty cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- within a month.

Of course, it definitely merits no reiteration that all the courts in India must definitely without fail undoubtedly emulate fully, firmly and finally the most laudable step taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in this leading case so that the simple, straightforward and strict message percolates all across the nation that those who lodge false FIR will have to pay through their nose if they dare to ever indulge in the same.

At the very outset, this extremely commendable, courageous, cogent and creditworthy oral judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Alok Jain sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para that:
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 71 dated 30.03.2022, registered under Sections 323 and 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana(Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise by way of an affidavit dated 02.04.2022 (Annexure P-2).

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in the next para of this notable judgment that:
Keeping in view the fact that the parties entered into a compromise, this Court vide order dated 21.04.2022 directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for getting their statements recorded in that regard. Pursuant thereto, a report dated 17.05.2022 has been received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, stating that the compromise arrived at between the parties is voluntary and the same is without any pressure, coercion or undue influence.

As per the report, it transpires that the petitioner is involved in four other cases in which three FIRs all under Section 188 IPC and the one FIR is under Section 68/1/14 of Essential Commodity Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, has submitted that the petitioner is running a Restaurant-cum-Bar and those FIRs are on that account.

As we see, the Bench then observes in the next para of this refreshing judgment that:
Learned State Counsel and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant admit the factum of compromise and submit that they have no objection to quashing of the FIR on that basis.

As it turned out, the Bench then states aptly in the next para of this robust judgment that:
Perusal of the aforesaid report establishes that the parties have amicably settled their dispute, and continuance of criminal prosecution in such a situation will be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in such matters. It has been held by Supreme Court of India in cases Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another 2012(10) SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another 2014(6) SCC 406 that criminal cases having overwhelmingly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or matrimonial relationships or family disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their disputes among themselves in a bona fide manner.

Most tellingly, the Bench then pulls back no punches to say most directly in the next para of this convincing judgment that:
In fact, the present petition demonstrates that how the process of law is abused just for the whims and fancies of the person like the complainant, who first slapped the petitioner in full public place and then just to suffice her ego, lodged the present FIR and then has compromised the matter.

Most significantly and also most forthrightly, the Bench then minces just no words in taking potshots at the most condemnable manner in which lodging of false FIR is used as a potent weapon to harass, humiliate and harangue other person without any fear propounding in the next para of this noteworthy judgment that:
It has been noticed that it has become a trend to misuse and abuse the process of law by lodging false FIRs like in the present case just to satisfy one’s own ego.

It is a fit case where appropriate action under law by invoking the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and other related provisions against complaint deserves to be invoked so that such kind of false, frivolous and manipulated FIRs are not registered, which ultimately lead to wastage of time of the State Machinery, which is thrown into action. Ultimately, it is the tax payer money which has been wasted on account of the false FIR lodged by the complainant.

Most remarkably, it cannot be glossed over that the Bench then mandates in the next para of this wonderful judgment holding most decisively that:
Although, the Court was of the view to take strict action against the complainant, however, taking a lenient view and by issuing a word of caution, coupled with imposition of heavy cost, this present petition is allowed. FIR No. 71 dated 30.03.2022, registered under Sections 323 and 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner, however, the complainant/respondent no.2 is imposed with the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid within one month from today in the following account:-

Account Name: Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association Lawyer’s Family Welfare Fund.
Account No: 41564846387
Bank Name: SBI High Court Branch.

Last but not the least, the Bench then finally concludes by directing in the last para of this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment that:
Put up on 27.03.2023 for compliance.

All said and done, it definitely merits no reiteration of any kind that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a very reasonable, righteous and robust approach in displaying complete zero tolerance for those who dare to lodge false FIR under the false delusion that they would get away very easily without being held accountable by anyone in any manner and the person against whom false FIR is lodged would suffer endlessly without committing any fault or wrong or crime and land up even in prison which cannot be justified under any circumstances!

It merits no underscoring that this has to be nipped in the bud which can be made possible only if all the Courts rule just like the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held so very briefly, brilliantly and boldly taking a most balanced approach in this leading case. There can be just no denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top