'Error Was Not Corrected': Gujarat High Court Grants Relief To Man Whose Name Appeared Both As Complainant & Accused In FIR
The Gujarat High Court quashed an FIR for voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation lodged against a man whose name was mistakenly shown as an accused in one place and as a complainant in another place in the same FIR.Noting that no steps were taken to correct the error, but an investigation was carried out and a charge-sheet was filed, the court said that continuing the FIR would...
The Gujarat High Court quashed an FIR for voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation lodged against a man whose name was mistakenly shown as an accused in one place and as a complainant in another place in the same FIR.
Noting that no steps were taken to correct the error, but an investigation was carried out and a charge-sheet was filed, the court said that continuing the FIR would be nothing but an "abuse of process of law".
On perusing the FIR, Justice Hasmukh D Suthar observed:
"Perusing the impugned FIR, it appears that the present petitioner is shown as accused while in column No.12 of the body of the FIR, name of petitioner is mentioned as complainant. After the investigation, charge-sheet is filed wherein it is stated that at the instance of Mahilapalsinh complaint is filed and charge-sheet is filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC. There is a stark contrast between the allegations leveled in the FIR dated 01.12.2023 and the charge-sheet dated 19.01.2024 filed after the investigation".
The order notes that upon instructions, the State's counsel submitted that due to inadvertence, an error has crept while recording the online FIR, but no order has been obtained from the competent authority and thereafter, based on the said FIR, investigation was carried out.
The court thereafter said:
"It is true that FIR itself is neither be-all and end-all nor an encyclopedia but no any steps have been taken to correct the said error and straightway in connection of the said offence, investigation was carried out and charge-sheet is filed. As non-cognizable offence is committed under Section 323 of the IPC and no allegation is made out under Section 506(2) of the IPC as no any threat or dire consequence administered as the petitioner himself on the same day approached the police authority and lodged the complaint and one cross-complaint is also filed, considering the complexity of the allegation and the counter allegation and investigation is not in tune with the FIR filed at Annexure-A and considering the fact that even the investigation is carried out in absence of permission under Section 155(2) of the CrPC, to continue such proceeding would be nothing but abuse of process of law".
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR registered at Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot City under the Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), Section 506(2) (criminal intimidation), and Section 114 (abetment) of the Indian Penal Code, wherein, the FIR named him as an accused and in the body of the FIR, he was mentioned as the complainant.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in CBI vs Ravi Shankar Srivastava and State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, wherein the apex court laid down the instances when the Court can exercise the power under Section 482 (for quashing). These are, when allegations are absurd or improbable, when an express legal bar prevents proceedings, or when the case is filed with mala fide intent to harass the accused.
Observing the law laid down, the court said, “In view of above, present petition deserves to be allowed as discussed in earlier part and the proceedings deserve to be quashed and set aside. In the result, the petition is allowed.”
Allowing the plea, the court quashed the FIR and set aside all the consequential proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
Case Title: Punjabhai Karsanbhai Barad/Aahir vs State of Gujarat
Case Number: SCr.A (For Quashing) No. 3205 of 2024