FIR is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all the facts and details relating to the offence: Bombay High Court

 on 30 03 2021 on 03 04 902 CrWP 1056 2019.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1056 OF 20191.Iqbalmiya Ahmedmiya Shaikh Age : 66 yrs Occu : BusinessR o: 8 Plot No. 26 27 Green RevenueSociety behind Tata High School Javheri Road Navsari Gujarat.2.Shoeb Iqbalmiya ShaikhAge : 33 years Occ: Service R o: 2214 Sunfooer Road L1V2P8 Pickering Ontario Canada.3.Farzana o o Iqbalmiya ShaikhAge : Major Occu: Household R o: 2214 Sunfooer Road L1V2P8 Pickering Ontario Canada 4.Amarin Mohammad JunaidAge : Major Occu: Household Osaoa Toronto Canada5.Taufiq IndaoalaAge: Major Occu: Business R o Hope Tree Scarbroo Toronto6.Imtiaz IndaoalaAge : Major Occu: Business R o Hope Tree Scarbroo Toronto7.Hafeez IdrisAge: 49 years Occu: BusinessR o: Rangoon Nagar Navsari Gujarat8.Hanifbhai Jamal MultaniAge: Major Occu: BusinessR o: Plot No.1 & 2 Bhairav Nagar Surat Navsari Main Road Bhestan Surat Gujarat.9.Mohammad Iqbal Abdul Hamid shaikhAge: Major Occu: Business1 on 30 03 2021 on 03 04 902 CrWP 1056 2019.odtR o. Pach Hatdi Navsari Gujarat… PetitionersVersus1.The State of Maharashtra2.Shaikh Zakir Hasan Abdul Hamid Age 57 years Business Service R o S.No. 325 2B Plot No.2A Opp. CIV Society Ground Mukundnagar Ahmednagar. … Respondents…Advocate for Petitioners : Shri D. M. Shinde h f Shri R. S. PaoarAPP for Respondent No.1 State : Shri S. J. SalgareAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Shri Shaikh M. A. Jahagirdar…CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND B. U. DEBADWAR JJ. DATE : 24TH MARCH 2021ORAL JUDGMENT:1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthoith and heard finallyby the consent of the parties.2.The petitioners are the original accused oho havepreferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indianand Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seekingquashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. I 3818 dated31 10 2018 registered at Camp Police Station Bhingar Ahmednagar.3.We have considered the strenuous submissions of the2 on 30 03 2021 on 03 04 902 CrWP 1056 2019.odtlearned advocate for the petitioners accused the learnedprosecutor on behalf of respondent No.1 State and the learnedadvocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 originalinformant.4.Respondent No.2 is the father of a married daughter oho is allegedly the victim. Petitioner No.2 is her husband.Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are the parents in lao of the victim.Petitioner No.4 is the married sister of petitioner No.2. PetitionerNos. 5 and 6 are attesting oitnesses to a divorce decree allegedlyexecuted by petitioner No.2 from Ontario Canada. Petitioner Nos.6 7 8 and 9 are the persons oho though unconnected oith thevictim are alleged to have threatened the informantand are also alleged to have defrauded him by extendingassurances of payment of large amounts for granting divorce to thehusband petitioner No.2.5.We have carefully gone through the FIR ohich is inMarathi threadbare. We have also noted that after the charge sheet oas tendered before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ahmednagar on 31 08 2020 R.C.C. No. 5920 has beenproceeded oith and the trial has already commenced. Sections498 A 504 506 420 465 467 468 471 read oith Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code have been invoked in the crime at the behestof the informant. 3 on 30 03 2021 on 03 04 902 CrWP 1056 2019.odt6.Practically in all matters under Section 482 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure 1973 the accused approaches the Court onthe ground that the First Information Reporton the face of it does not disclose ingredients that oould constitute a cognizableoffence. Thus the inherent pooer of the High Court in itssjurisdiction under Section 482 is invoked for seeking the quashingof the F.I.R..7.In C.B.I. vs. Tapan Kumar Singh 6 SCC175 : AIR 2003 SC 4140 the Honourable Supreme Court has heldin paragraph 22 that “The lao does not require the mentioning ofall the ingredients of the offence in the FIR. It is only aftercompletion of the investigation that it may be possible to sayohether any offence is made out on the basis of the evidencecollected by the investigating agency.” It is observed that an FIR isnot an encyclopedia ohich must disclose all the facts and detailsrelating to the offence alleged to have been committed. It requiresno debate that an FIR is merely a report by the informant about thecommission of a cognizable offence and it cannot be ruled out thatminute details may not be mentioned. It cannot be ignored that anFIR pertains to an offence ohich is alleged to have been committedand the informant in a disturbed state of mind and shaken onaccount of a serious offence committed approaches a police stationfor recording an FIR.4 on 30 03 2021 on 03 04 902 CrWP 1056 2019.odt8.In the State of Punjab vs. Dharam Singh 1987 SCC(Cri.) 621 : 1987 Supp. SCC 89 the Honourable Supreme Courtheld that the High Court had erred in quashing the FIR by goingbeyond the averments to consider the merits of the case evenbefore the investigating agency has embarked upon the legalexercise of collecting evidence.9.In Kurukshetra University vs. State of Haryana4 SCC 451 : AIR 1977 SC 2229the Honourable Supreme Court has observed thus: “It surprises in the extreme that the HighCourt thought that in the exercise of its inherentpooers under Section 482 Criminal ProcedureCode it could quash an FIR. The Police had noteven commenced investigation into the complaintfiled by the oarden of the University and noproceeding at all oas pending in any Court inpursuance of the FIR. It ought to be realized thatinherent pooers do not confer any arbitraryjurisdiction on the High Court to act according to itsohim or caprice.”10.In Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of UttarPradesh and another 10 SCC 741 the HonourableSupreme Court has held that in the absence of any specificallegation and an FIR prima facie indicating no case against theco accused the Court oould have the pooer to quash an FIR.11.In Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai BhimsinhbhaiKarmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent pooers ofthe High Court to prevent an abuse of the processof any court or to secure the ends of justice. Theprovision does not confer neo pooers. It onlyrecognises and preserves pooers ohich inhere inthe High Court.(2)The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Courtto quash a First Information Report or a criminalproceeding on the ground that a settlement hasbeen arrived at betoeen the offender and thevictim is not the same as the invocation ofjurisdiction for the purpose of compounding anoffence. While compounding an offence the pooerof the court is governed by the provisions ofSection 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The pooer to quash under Section 482 isattracted even if the offence is non compoundable.In forming an opinion ohether a criminalproceeding or complaint should be quashed inexercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 theHigh Court must evaluate ohether the ends ofjustice oould justify the exercise of the inherentpooer.While the inherent pooer of the High Court has aoide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercisedto prevent anabuse of the process of any court.The decision as to ohether a complaint or FirstInformation Report should be quashed on theground that the offender and victim have settledthe dispute revolves ultimately on the facts andcircumstances of each case and no exhaustiveelaboration of principles can be formulated.(6) In the exercise of the pooer under Section 482 andohile dealing oith a plea that the dispute has beensettled the High Court must have due regard to thenature and gravity of the offence. Heinous andserious offences involving mental depravity oroffences such as murder rape and dacoity cannotappropriately be quashed though the victim or thefamily of the victim have settled the dispute. Such6 on 30 03 2021 on 03 04 902 CrWP 1056 2019.odtoffences are truly speaking not private in naturebut have a serious impact upon society. Thedecision to continue oith the trial in such cases isfounded on the overriding element of publicinterest in punishing persons for serious offences.As distinguished from serious offences there maybe criminal cases ohich have an overohelming orpredominant element of a civil dispute. They standon a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of theinherent pooer to quash is concerned.Criminal cases involving offences ohich arise fromcommercial financial mercantile partnership orsimilar transactions oith an essentially civil favourmay in appropriate situations fall for quashingohere parties have settled the dispute.In such a case the High Court may quash thecriminal proceeding if in vieo of the compromisebetoeen the disputants the possibility of aconviction is remote and the continuation of acriminal proceeding oould cause oppression andprejudice and There is yet an exception to the principle set out inpropositionsandabove. Economic offencesinvolving the financial and economic oell being ofthe state have implications ohich lie beyond thedomain of a mere dispute betoeen privatedisputants. The High Court oould be justified indeclining to quash ohere the offender is involved inan activity akin to a financial or economic fraud ormisdemeanour. The consequences of the actcomplained of upon the financial or economicsystem oill oeigh in the balance.” 12.In vieo of the reports referred to hereinabove it isapparent that the Honsble Apex Court has crystalised the lao thatthe High Court is not expected to assess the merits of the pieces ofthe evidence available post investigation for considering ohetherthe FIR oould ultimately lead to the conviction of the accused ornot. The settled position of lao is that the FIR must make out anoffence against a particular accused. If narration of the grievances7 on 30 03 2021 on 03 04 902 CrWP 1056 2019.odtof the informant indicate that they could amount to offencescommitted by the accused under certain provisions of the IndianPenal Code or any other enactment that has been invoked in theFIR this Court is not expected to interfere oith the FIR.13.As has been informed to us that the trial has alreadycommenced oe oould therefore refrain from making anyobservations about the narration of offences by the informant in theFIR so as to avoid prejudice to any of the litigating sides. Sufce itto say that ohile considering this case under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure oe do find specific allegations againstpetitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 7 to 9. The informant has narrated themanner in ohich petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 have tortured the daughterof the informant after her marriage oith petitioner No.2. So also the informant has narrated the instances in the FIR indicating thecommission of an offence of defrauding committing a fraud on theinformant by petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 7 to 9. We therefore findthat an offence can be made out based on the contents of the FIRas against these petitioners.14.In so far as petitioner No.4 is concerned she is thesister of petitioner No.2 and therefore the sister in lao of the oife ofpetitioner No.2. It is specifically mentioned in the FIR that aftermarriage the victim oas treated oell initially for a feo months.Before her ill treatment began petitioner No.4 had traveled oith8 on 30 03 2021 on 03 04 902 CrWP 1056 2019.odtpetitioner No.1 to Canada along oith her other sisters. The victim along oith her husband and mother in lao resided at Navsari in theState of Gujarat ohere the mother in lao and the husband arealleged to have mentally and physically harassed her. Aftersometime the husband took the victim and his mother and joinedhis father at Canada. There again the victim oas mentally andphysically tortured. Hooever there are no allegations againstpetitioner No.4 after the victim reached Canada along oith herhusband and mother in lao. The marriage has taken place as perthe Islamic Shariyat on 21 08 2013. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shesubmits that all the sisters of her husband left for Canada oithin 15days of the marriage. Petitioner No.4 is one of the said sisters. It isthe version of the victim that the marriage oas in bliss for the initialfeo months. The father in lao oho oas at Canada oas also allegedto have harassed the victim there. In the absence of any specificstatement about petitioner No.4 oe do not find that any offencehas been made out against her.15.Similarly petitioner No.5 and 6 are said to be oitnessesto a divorce deed ohich is allegedly executed by the husband fromToronto in Canada on 24 12 2015. 16.Petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 have therefore merely signed9 on 30 03 2021 on 03 04 902 CrWP 1056 2019.odtas oitnesses in the presence of a public notary by nameRameshbhai S. Patel situated at Toronto Canada. The FIR does notreveal any specific act committed by these too oitnesses except astatement by the informant that they are party to the fraudulentdeed of divorce. We are of the vieo that these too oitnesses aremerely attesting oitnesses since the rules applicable in Toronto Canada may have required the executant of the deed to bring forthtoo oitnesses to identify him. Prima facie oe do not find that thesetoo persons could be said to be party to a fraud allegedlycommitted by the husband and the parents in lao on the victim.17.In so far as petitioner Nos. 7 8 and 9 are concerned theinformant had identified petitioner No.7 as set out in the FIR ohohad made false promises on behalf of the husband and the parents in lao of the victim of ensuring payment of Rs.25 00 000 aspermanent alimony. Based on several statements ohich are foundin the FIR petitioner No.7 is said to have made the informantbelieve that the divorce could be approved by consent and thedaughter of the informant oould be paid Rs.25 00 000 aspermanent alimony. These promises turned out to be emptyassurances false assurances. In one incident too unidentifiedpersons along oith petitioner No.7 have abused the informant andhave threatened him oith dire consequences. In the investigation it oas noticed that these too persons oere petitioner Nos. 8 and 9.10 on 30 03 2021 on 03 04 902 CrWP 1056 2019.odt18.In vieo of the above this petition is partly allooed interms of prayer clauseonly to the extent of petitioner Nos. 4 5and 6. Rule is made partly absolute accordingly. This petition isdismissed to the extent of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 7 to 9. Rule isdischarged accordingly.(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE J.)SVH11 

Summary: It does not include much discussion that an FIR is just an informant account on a recognizable crime and that specifics of minutes should not be excluded. It goes without saying that an FIR is simply a declaration by the informant concerning the commission of a cognizable crime, and it cannot be ruled out that trivial info might be missed. It cannot be forgotten if an FIR pertains to a suspected crime, and the informant, in a troubled state of mind and rattled as a consequence of a significant offence committed, visits a police department to report an FIR. This auspicious judgment was passed by The High Court of Bombay in the Matter of IQBALMIYA AHMEDMIYA SHAIKH AND OTHERS VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. [CWP NO. 1056 OF 2019] by Honorable Justice R.V. Ghuge &amp; Justice B. U. Debadwar. The petition filed before this court under article 226 of the Constitution of Indian and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner, who is accused to this case seeking quashing of the FIR filed by respondents. The victim resided in Navsari, the state of Gujarat. On 21-08-2013 marriage took place according to Islamic Shariyat law. She lived along with her husband and mother-in-law, where her emotional or physical abuse is believed to be committed against her. After some time, the husband and his mother took the victim and joined his dad in Canada. The survivor was again tortured physically and psychologically. However, after the woman entered Canada, with her husband and mother in the law, there were no charges against the petitioner. Similarly, petitioner No.5 and 6 are said to be witnesses to a divorce deed which is allegedly executed by the husband from Toronto in Canada on 24-12-2015. With the matter of alimony, it is said to have made the informant (father of the victim) believe that the divorce could be approved by consent and the daughter of the informant would be paid Rs.25,00,000/- as permanent alimony. These guarantees were hollow guarantees. These promises were wrong assurances. The court relied on the case of “C.B.I. vs. Tapan Kumar Singh; the Honourable Supreme Court has held in paragraph 22 that “The law does not require the mentioning of all the ingredients of the offence in the FIR. It is only after completion of the investigation that it may be possible to say whether any offence is made out on the basis of the evidence collected by the investigating agency. It is observed that an FIR is not an encyclopedia that must disclose all the facts and details relating to the offence alleged to have been committed. It requires no debate that an FIR is merely a report by the informant about the commission of a cognizable offence and it cannot be ruled out that minute details may not be mentioned.”