In CRL.M.C. 2520/2023 -DEL HC- FIRs for serious offenses like ‘extortion’ cannot be quashed based on settlement: Delhi High Court
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma [24-11-2023]

Read Order: Vishesh Aggarwal & Ors. V. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 28, 2023: The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR alleging extortion and assault, holding that the allegations were too serious to be quashed at the investigation stage.

The present petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323/341/384/506/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

In summary, the case involved an FIR registered based on the complaint of Daulatram, who alleged that several individuals, including the accused/applicant Vishesh, had physically assaulted his employee Sukhwinder and attempted to extort money from him. Daulatram claimed ownership of a property in Delhi with multiple tenants, including the accused/applicant, and had issued eviction notices due to the building being declared dangerous by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation. However, instead of vacating the premises, the accused began threatening the complainant. The complaint further alleged that the accused physically assaulted the complainant and his employee, with some of the accused allegedly armed with sharp-edged weapons.

The counsel for the petitioner stated that a compromise had been entered into between the parties at the very initial stage of the investigation, i.e., before filing the charge sheet. The APP for the State argued that the allegations against the accused persons were serious, involving physical assault on the complainant and extortion of money through threats to him and his family. It was asserted that the present case, characterized by such serious nature, could not be quashed during the ongoing investigation, despite a settlement being reached between the parties.

The single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma opined that the allegations levelled in the FIR were serious in nature, including, among other things, the commission of an offense under Section 384 of the IPC, which deals with the offense of extortion. Such allegations could not be treated as a mere private dispute between two parties. If found true during the course of the investigation or trial, they were considered offenses against society at large. Therefore, FIRs with such serious allegations could not be quashed merely based on settlement agreements reached between two parties.

The bench also noted that in the case of State of Haryana v. Chaudhari Bhajan Lal [LQ/SC/1990/744], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had cautioned that the High Court, in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C., might interfere in proceedings related to cognizable offenses to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, such power should have been exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

In the present case, the bench held that a bare perusal of the FIR made it clear that there were serious allegations of extortion of money by the accused/applicant. The accused had allegedly assaulted the complainant and his employee, further threatening to initiate false criminal cases against them and their family members if the demand for payment of money was not met. The allegations in the FIR were deemed sufficient for the police to conduct further investigation against the accused. The bench also expressed the view that, applying the principles laid down in the case of Bhajan Lal, the FIR could not be quashed since the investigation was still pending, and the chargesheet was yet to be filed. It was emphasized that it was the duty of the police and the investigating officer to inquire into and investigate the serious allegations in the FIR to ascertain the truth.

Further, the bench noted that the police must be permitted to complete the investigation unless, on the face of it, the allegations seemed to be inherently absurd or improbable. Pronouncing a conclusion based on uninvestigated facts that the complaint did not deserve investigation and amounted to an abuse of the process of law would be premature. It was emphasized that, during or after the investigation, if it was found that there was no substance in the complaint made by the complainant, the investigating officer could file an appropriate report before the Magistrate. The report could then be considered by the Magistrate in accordance with the law.

Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, along with the allegations and material available on record, the Court found no reason to quash the FIR at the present stage of the investigation.

Accordingly, the present petition was dismissed.