Issue for consideration: In the instant case wherein FIR wasregistered u/ss. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC against the appellants, thequestions which arose for consideration are whether the said case fallswithin the parameters laid down for quashing the FIR; whether theplain reading of the FIR discloses commission of the off ence of dacoitypunishable u/s. 395 IPC; whether any case of criminal intimidationpunishable u/ss. 504 and 506(2) IPC is made out; and whether theallegations levelled in the FIR inspire any confi dence considering thedelay of one year in lodging the FIR.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – FIR – Quashingof – FIR alleging that to settle a land dispute the informant and hisbrother visited the house of the appellant on their own free will whereinthe appellant and the other co-accused assaulted the informant andhis brother, forcibly took Rs. 2 lakh from the informants’ pocketand thereafter took their signatures forcibly on a blank paper – FIRregistered u/ss. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC – High Court declining toquash the FIR – Correctness:Held: Entire case put up by the informant on the face of it appears tobe concocted and fabricated – Multiple FIRs have been registered against theappellant and the other accused over a period of time which attract wreakingvengeance out of private or personal grudge – Continuation of the criminalcase arising from the FIR would be nothing but abuse of the process of thelaw – Thus, the impugned order passed by the High Court set aside and the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.395, 504, 506 and 323. [Paras 29, 30, 35 and 36]Penal Code, 1860 – s. 395 – Punishment for Dacoity – FIR allegingthat to settle a land dispute the informant and his brother visitedthe house of the appellant wherein the appellant and the co-accusedassaulted the informant and his brother and forcibly took R. 2 lakh fromthe informants’ pocket – Registration of FIR for the off ence punishableu/s. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC – Correctness:Held: s. 395 is not applicable to the instant case – Prosecutionblindfoldedly and without understanding the true purport of the off enceof “dacoity” registered the FIR for the off ence punishable u/s. 395 – Noneof the ingredients to constitute the off ence of dacoity disclosed – Entirecase put up by the fi rst informant appears to be fabricated – At the time ofalleged incident, taking away of Rs. 2 Lakh from the pocket of the informantforcibly by the accused persons would not fall within the ambit of the words“for that end” occurring in s. 390 – Even according to the informant, witha view to settle the land dispute, the informant and his brother visited thehouse of the appellant on their own free will and volition – It is only afterreaching the house of the appellant that the entire incident is alleged to haveoccurred. [Paras 17 and 18]Penal Code, 1860 – s. 390 – Robbery – Theft when amounts torobbery:Held: Three ingredients mentioned in s.390 must always be satisfi edbefore theft can amount to robbery – Firstly, the off ender must havevoluntarily caused or attempted to cause to any person death or hurt orwrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instantwrongful restraint – Secondly this must be in order to the committing of thetheft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carryaway property obtained by the theft – Thirdly the off ender must voluntarilycause or attempt to cause to any person hurt etc., for that end, that is, inorder to the committing of the theft or for the purpose of committing theftor for carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by thetheft. [Paras 14 and 15]Penal Code, 1860 – s. 504 – Intentional insult with intent to provokebreach of peace – Necessary ingredient u/s. 504: Held: Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amountto an intentional insult within the meaning of s. 504 if it does not have thenecessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commita breach of the peace of an off ence and the other element of the accusedintending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace orknowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace– Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of thefacts and circumstances of that case – There cannot be a general propositionthat no one commits an off ence u/s. 504 if he merely uses abusive languageagainst the complainant. [Paras 25 and 26]Penal Code, 1860 – s. 506 – Off ence of criminal intimidation –When:Held: Before an off ence of criminal intimidation is made out, itmust be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm tothe complainant – On facts, to settle a land dispute the informant and hisbrother visited the house of the appellant on their own free will wherein theappellant and the other co-accused assaulted the informant and his brother,forcibly took Rs. 2 lakh from the informants’ pocket and thereafter tooktheir signatures forcibly on a blank paper and FIR was registered u/ss. 395,504, 506 and 323 – Prima facie case to constitute the off ence punishableu/s. 506 may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not u/s.504 – In the FIR, all that the informant has stated is that abusive languagewas used by the accused persons – What exactly was uttered in the form ofabuses not stated in the FIR – One of the essential elements constituting anoff ence u/s. 504 is that there should have been an act or conduct amountingto intentional insult – Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it isnecessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether theuse of those words amounted to intentional insult – In the absence thereof,not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult present– Thus, case of criminal intimidation punishable u/ss. 504 and 506(2) notmade out. [Para 29]Interpretation of statutes – Penal statute – Interpretation of:Held: Must be strictly construed – Court must see that the thing chargedis an off ence within the plain meaning of the words used and must not strainthe words. [Paras 19 and 21] FIR – Quashing of – Invocation of inherent powers u/s. 482 CrPCor extraordinary jurisdiction u/Art. 226 of the Constitution – Duty ofthe court:Held: Whenever an accused seeks quashing of the FIR or thecriminal proceedings essentially on the ground that such proceedings aremanifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motivefor wreaking vengeance, in such circumstances the Court owes a dutyto look into the FIR with care and a little more closely – It would not bejust enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of the alleged off ence are disclosed ornot – In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty tolook into many other attending circumstances emerging from the recordof the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due careand circumspection try to read in between the lines – Court is empoweredto take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the courseof investigation. [Para 26]FIR – Importance and object of:Held: FIR in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable pieceof evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced atthe trial – Object of insisting upon lodging of the FIR to the police in respectof commission of an off ence is to obtain early information regarding thecircumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actualculprits and the part played by them as well as names of the eye witnessespresent at the scene of occurrence. [Para 32]Delay/ Laches – Delay in lodging FIR – Ground to quash FIR:Held: Delay in the registration of the FIR, by itself, cannot be a groundfor quashing of the FIR – However, delay with other attending circumstancesrendering the entire case put up by the prosecution inherently improbable,may at times become a good ground to quash the FIR and consequentialproceedings – If the FIR, like the instant one, lodged after a period of morethan one year without disclosing the date and time of the alleged incidentand further without any plausible and convincing explanation for such delay,the accused cannot defend himself in the trial – Allegations are too vague and general – In the absence of all this material, the State cannot prove itscase against the accused persons. [Paras 32 and 33]Criminal Law – Criminal antecedents of the accused – Eff ect of,on the criminal proceedings:Held: Criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the soleconsideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings – An accused hasa legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever bad his antecedentsmay be, still if the FIR fails to disclose commission of any off ence then thecourt should not decline to quash the criminal case – Initiation of prosecutionhas adverse and harsh consequence for the persons named as accused –Thus, the requirement and need to balance the law enforcement power andprotection of citizens from injustice and harassment must be maintained –State owes a duty to ensure that no crime goes unpunished as also owes aduty to ensure that none of its subjects are unnecessarily harassed. [Para 34]