In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Bombay High Court rejected the plea of the informant to quash the FIR she registered herself. The court held that it would not exercise its power sparingly to quash a serious offence where the complainant initiated the proceedings.
Rejected the application for quashing of the FIR.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
apl-1263.14.sxw
pmw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1263 OF 2014
Mrs. Kalpana Naresh Chowdhary … Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh for the Applicant. Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent No.1.
CORAM : A.S. OKA & P. D. NAIK, JJ.
DATE : 26th APRIL, 2016
P.C.
1 Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant were heard on 20th April, 2016. The Applicant herself is the informant at whose instance the FIR was registered by Vile Parle Police Station, Mumbai for the offences under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 66A and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Applicant who is the first informant is seeking quashing of the FIR registered on the basis of her own complaint.
2 We have perused the FIR. According to us though the offence under Section 66A of the I.T. Act will not survive, but the
1 of 2
apl-1263.14.sxw
offence is of serious nature. The contention is that the health condition
of the Applicant does not permit her to prosecute the criminal proceedings. The Applicant has set the criminal law in motion and now it is for the Police to investigate into the offence.
3 After having set the criminal law in motion, now the Applicant cannot say that she does not want Police to take action on the basis of the FIR.
4 Power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has to be exercised sparingly and in rarest of the rare case. Considering the nature of the offence, we are not inclined to exercise power under Section 482 of the said Code.
5 We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on merits of the allegations made by the Applicant. It is for the Investigating Officer to come to his own conclusion after completing the investigation.
6 Subject to what is observed above, the application is rejected.
2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal application seeking quashing of an FIR registered on the basis of the applicant's own complaint regarding offences under Section 506 IPC/Sections 66A/67 IT Act should be allowed giv
Whether to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC sparingly considering the applicant initiated the criminal law.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mrs. Kalpana Naresh Chowdhary
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
A.S. OKA
P. D. NAIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
