# CASE DETAILS MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANR v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS

- **Citation:** 2023 INSC 683
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-08-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2340 of 2023
- **Bench:** B. R. Gavai, J. B. Pardiwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/case-details-mohammad-wajid-and-anr-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-36259
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

Issue for consideration: In the instant case wherein FIR was
registered u/ss. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC against the appellants, the
questions which arose for consideration are whether the said case falls
within the parameters laid down for quashing the FIR; whether the
plain reading of the FIR discloses commission of the off ence of dacoity
punishable u/s. 395 IPC; whether any case of criminal intimidation
punishable u/ss. 504 and 506(2) IPC is made out; and whether the
allegations levelled in the FIR inspire any confi dence considering the
delay of one year in lodging the FIR.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - FIR - Quashing
of - FIR alleging that to settle a land dispute the informant and his
brother visited the house of the appellant on their own free will wherein
the appellant and the other co-accused assaulted the informant and
his brother, forcibly took Rs. 2 lakh from the informants' pocket
and thereafter took their signatures forcibly on a blank paper - FIR
registered u/ss. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC - High Court declining to
quash the FIR - Correctness:
Held: Entire case put up by the informant on the face of it appears to
be concocted and fabricated - Multiple FIRs have been registered against the
appellant and the other accused over a period of time which attract wreaking
vengeance out of private or personal grudge - Continuation of the criminal
case arising from the FIR would be nothing but abuse of the process of the
law - Thus, the impugned order passed by the High Court set aside and the
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 313 : 2023 INSC 683
313
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
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 alleging
that to settle a land dispute the informant and his brother visited
the house of the appellant wherein the appellant and the co-accused
assaulted the informant and his brother and forcibly took R. 2 lakh from
the informants' pocket - Registration of FIR for the off ence punishable
u/s. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC - Correctness:
Held: s. 395 is not applicable to the instant case - Prosecution
blindfoldedly and without understanding the true purport of the off ence
of "dacoity" registered the FIR for the off ence punishable u/s. 395 - None
of the ingredients to constitute the off ence of dacoity disclosed - Entire
case put up by the fi rst informant appears to be fabricated - At the time of
alleged incident, taking away of Rs. 2 Lakh from the pocket of the informant
forcibly 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, with
a view to settle the land dispute, the informant and his brother visited the
house of the appellant on their own free will and volition - It is only after
reaching the house of the appellant that the entire incident is alleged to have
occurred. [Paras 17 and 18]
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 390 - Robbery - Theft when amounts to
robbery:
Held: Three ingredients mentioned in s.390 must always be satisfi ed
before theft can amount to robbery - Firstly, the off ender must have
voluntarily caused or attempted to cause to any person death or hurt or
wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant
wrongful restraint - Secondly this must be in order to the committing of the
theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry
away property obtained by the theft - Thirdly the off ender must voluntarily
cause or attempt to cause to any person hurt etc., for that end, that is, in
order to the committing of the theft or for the purpose of committing theft
or for carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the
theft. [Paras 14 and 15]
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 504 - Intentional insult with intent to provoke
breach of peace - Necessary ingredient u/s. 504:
315
Held: Mere abuse, discourtesy, rud

## Text

_Characters 0–39,986 of 73,710. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39986 for what follows._

CASE DETAILS
MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2340 of 2023)
AUGUST 08, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: In the instant case wherein FIR was
registered u/ss. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC against the appellants, the
questions which arose for consideration are whether the said case falls
within the parameters laid down for quashing the FIR; whether the
plain reading of the FIR discloses commission of the off ence of dacoity
punishable u/s. 395 IPC; whether any case of criminal intimidation
punishable u/ss. 504 and 506(2) IPC is made out; and whether the
allegations levelled in the FIR inspire any confi dence considering the
delay of one year in lodging the FIR.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - FIR - Quashing
of - FIR alleging that to settle a land dispute the informant and his
brother visited the house of the appellant on their own free will wherein
the appellant and the other co-accused assaulted the informant and
his brother, forcibly took Rs. 2 lakh from the informants' pocket
and thereafter took their signatures forcibly on a blank paper - FIR
registered u/ss. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC - High Court declining to
quash the FIR - Correctness:
Held: Entire case put up by the informant on the face of it appears to
be concocted and fabricated - Multiple FIRs have been registered against the
appellant and the other accused over a period of time which attract wreaking
vengeance out of private or personal grudge - Continuation of the criminal
case arising from the FIR would be nothing but abuse of the process of the
law - Thus, the impugned order passed by the High Court set aside and the
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 313 : 2023 INSC 683
313
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
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 alleging
that to settle a land dispute the informant and his brother visited
the house of the appellant wherein the appellant and the co-accused
assaulted the informant and his brother and forcibly took R. 2 lakh from
the informants' pocket - Registration of FIR for the off ence punishable
u/s. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC - Correctness:
Held: s. 395 is not applicable to the instant case - Prosecution
blindfoldedly and without understanding the true purport of the off ence
of "dacoity" registered the FIR for the off ence punishable u/s. 395 - None
of the ingredients to constitute the off ence of dacoity disclosed - Entire
case put up by the fi rst informant appears to be fabricated - At the time of
alleged incident, taking away of Rs. 2 Lakh from the pocket of the informant
forcibly 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, with
a view to settle the land dispute, the informant and his brother visited the
house of the appellant on their own free will and volition - It is only after
reaching the house of the appellant that the entire incident is alleged to have
occurred. [Paras 17 and 18]
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 390 - Robbery - Theft when amounts to
robbery:
Held: Three ingredients mentioned in s.390 must always be satisfi ed
before theft can amount to robbery - Firstly, the off ender must have
voluntarily caused or attempted to cause to any person death or hurt or
wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant
wrongful restraint - Secondly this must be in order to the committing of the
theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry
away property obtained by the theft - Thirdly the off ender must voluntarily
cause or attempt to cause to any person hurt etc., for that end, that is, in
order to the committing of the theft or for the purpose of committing theft
or for carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the
theft. [Paras 14 and 15]
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 504 - Intentional insult with intent to provoke
breach of peace - Necessary ingredient u/s. 504:
315
Held: Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount
to an intentional insult within the meaning of s. 504 if it does not have the
necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit
a breach of the peace of an off ence and the other element of the accused
intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or
knowing 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 the
facts and circumstances of that case - There cannot be a general proposition
that no one commits an off ence u/s. 504 if he merely uses abusive language
against 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, it
must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to
the complainant - On facts, to settle a land dispute the informant and his
brother visited the house of the appellant on their own free will wherein the
appellant and the other co-accused assaulted the informant and his brother,
forcibly took Rs. 2 lakh from the informants' pocket and thereafter took
their 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 punishable
u/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 language
was used by the accused persons - What exactly was uttered in the form of
abuses not stated in the FIR - One of the essential elements constituting an
off ence u/s. 504 is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting
to intentional insult - Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is
necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the
use 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) not
made out. [Para 29]
Interpretation of statutes - Penal statute - Interpretation of:
Held: Must be strictly construed - Court must see that the thing charged
is an off ence within the plain meaning of the words used and must not strain
the words. [Paras 19 and 21]
MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P.
AND ORS.
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
FIR - Quashing of - Invocation of inherent powers u/s. 482 CrPC
or extraordinary jurisdiction u/Art. 226 of the Constitution - Duty of
the court:
Held: Whenever an accused seeks quashing of the FIR or the
criminal proceedings essentially on the ground that such proceedings are
manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive
for wreaking vengeance, in such circumstances the Court owes a duty
to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely - It would not be
just 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 or
not - In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to
look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record
of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection try to read in between the lines - Court is empowered
to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/
registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course
of investigation. [Para 26]
FIR - Importance and object of:
Held: FIR in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece
of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at
the trial - Object of insisting upon lodging of the FIR to the police in respect
of commission of an off ence is to obtain early information regarding the
circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual
culprits and the part played by them as well as names of the eye witnesses
present 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 ground
for quashing of the FIR - However, delay with other attending circumstances
rendering the entire case put up by the prosecution inherently improbable,
may at times become a good ground to quash the FIR and consequential
proceedings - If the FIR, like the instant one, lodged after a period of more
than one year without disclosing the date and time of the alleged incident
and further without any plausible and convincing explanation for such delay,
the accused cannot defend himself in the trial - Allegations are too vague
317
and general - In the absence of all this material, the State cannot prove its
case 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 sole
consideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings - An accused has
a legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever bad his antecedents
may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose commission of any off ence then the
court should not decline to quash the criminal case - Initiation of prosecution
has adverse and harsh consequence for the persons named as accused -
Thus, the requirement and need to balance the law enforcement power and
protection of citizens from injustice and harassment must be maintained -
State owes a duty to ensure that no crime goes unpunished as also owes a
duty to ensure that none of its subjects are unnecessarily harassed. [Para 34]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604: [1990] 3 Suppl.
SCR 259; Bishambhar Nath v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1941 Oudh 476; Karuppa
Gounden v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1918 Madras 821; Otaruddi Manjhi v. Kafi luddi
Manjhi, (1900-01) 5 C.W.N. 372; King Emperor v. Mathura Thakur, (190102) 6 C.W.N. 72; King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR
78; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522:
[2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 147; Directorate of Revenue and another v. Mohammed
Nisar Holia, (2008) 2 SCC 370: [2007] 12 SCR 906 - referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2340 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2022 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in CRLMWP No. 15174 of 2022.
Appearances:
Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Mohd. Zahid Hussain, Ms. Jemtiben A.O,
Utsav Sehgal, Ms. Mumtaz Javed Shaikh, Advs. for the Appellants.
MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P.
AND ORS.
318
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
Ms. Garima Prasad, Sr. A.A.G., Brijendra Chahar, Sr. Adv., Vishwa
Pal Singh, Aviral Saxena, Rabindra Lokhare, Ms. Shweta Yadav, Abhinav
Agrawal, Harsh Pratap Shahi, Ms. Manvi Dikshit Sharma, Ashutosh
Bhardwaj, Prateek Rai, Shubham Saxena, Akash, Naman Raj Singh, Ashish
Pandey, Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
J. B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is at the instance of the original accused Nos. 1 and 2
resply of the First Information Report (FIR) being the Crime Registration
No. 224 of 2022 dated 19.09.2022 registered with the Mirzapur Police
Station, District Saharanpur, State of U.P. for the off ences punishable under
Sections 395, 504, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and is directed
against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated
17.10.2022 in the Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 15174 of 2022
by which the High Court rejected the Writ Petition fi led by appellants herein
thereby declining to quash the aforesaid FIR.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The respondent No. 4 herein namely Ram Kumar lodged FIR No.
224 of 2022 for the off ences enumerated above at the police station also
referred to above. The FIR reads thus:-
"... The undersigned Ramkumar son of Sadhuram is a resident of
Kasimpur, P.S. Mirjapur. I want to submit that Haji Iqbal, his son
Javed, Wazid, Alishan, Afjal and brother of Iqbal namely Mehmood
Ali forcefully started to tell us since long that our land bearing Khasra
No. 256/1 situated at Village Mayapur belongs to them. It is in the
year 2021 when time for cultivation arrived, that myself and my
brother Rajkumar went to the house of Iqbal, son of Abdul Wahid at
Mirjapur. We requested him that you people are disturbing the peace
and tranquility of us. We said, we were destitudes. It is on that Iqbal,
his brother Mehmood and his sons namely Zabed, Wajid, Alishan and
319
Afjal became very furious on us. They started using abusive language
against us. We requested them to stop uttering abusive language. It is at
that time all these persons assaulted us with their hands and fi sts for a
long time. It is thereafter they on a point of pistol put on my forehead,
they took away Rs. 2 lakh kept in my pocket forcefully. Thereafter, all
these people stated that if we would talk of this to any one, they would
kill all the members of our family. It is then Iqbal told me to sign the
stamp paper. After terrorizing and threatening us, they compelled we
both brothers to put our signatures on the stamp papers. We being
robbed, we returned silently to our home. We thereafter communicated
the present fact before our family members. It is however due to fear of
these persons, none of the members of our family supported us against
these persons. After thinking a lot and mustering courage, I have
come down before your police station for lodging the present report.
Applicant Sd/-Rajkumar 19.09.2022-Ram Kumar s/o Sadhuram r/o
Kasimpusr, P.S. Mirjapur, District Saharanpur, M.No. 9758031420."
(Emphasis supplied)
4. Thus the FIR as aforestated reveals that the fi rst informant is a
resident of village Kasimpur, Mirzapur, District Saharanpur. His name has
been recorded as a tenure holder of agricultural land bearing Khasra No.
256/1 situated at village Mayapur, District Saharanpur. He has alleged that
the appellants herein alongwith few other co-accused have been putting
forward wrong claim of being the owners of the land bearing Khasra No.
256/1. It is his case that sometime in the year 2021, he along with his brother
namely Rajkumar had visited the house of the appellant No. 2 herein situated
at Mirzapur to request him not to interfere with their lawful possession and
ownership of the land in question. It is his case that at that point of time the
appellants herein and other co-accused hurled abuses to the fi rst informant
and his brother Rajkumar and all the accused thereafter assaulted the fi rst
informant and his brother with hands and fi sts. It is further alleged that at
that point of time the accused persons on the point of a gun forcibly took
away Rs. 2 Lakh from the pocket of the fi rst informant. The accused persons
are also alleged to have threatened the fi rst informant that if he would talk
to anyone about the incident, then all his family members would be killed.
In the last, the fi rst informant has alleged that the accused persons forcibly
MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P.
AND ORS. [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
320
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
obtained signatures of the fi rst informant and his brother on a plain stamp
paper. After the alleged incident, the fi rst informant and his brother Rajkumar
left the house of the appellant No. 2 herein.
5. It is pertinent to note that for the incident alleged to have occurred
in the year 2021, the FIR was lodged in the year 2022. It is also pertinent
to note that in the FIR, no date and time of the alleged incident has been
stated. No plausible explanation was off ered by the fi rst informant as to why
there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR.
6. The appellants herein went before the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad and fi led Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 15174 of 2022
and prayed for the quashing of the FIR in question. The High Court declined
to entertain the writ application and rejected the same observing as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A
for the State respondents.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R.
dated 19.09.2022, registered as Case Crime No. 0224 of 2022, under
sections 395, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C., Police Station Mirzapur, District
Saharanpur.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which
discloses cognizable off ence.
Perusal of the impugned fi rst information report prima facie
reveals commission of cognizable off ence. Therefore, in view of the law
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana
and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR
2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021
(Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh)
decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference
with the impugned fi rst information report.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the
petitioners to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/
bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law."
321
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfi ed with the aforesaid, the appellants
are before this Court with the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
7. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants in the written submissions fi led by him has stated as under:-
"1. The Petitioners who are Accused Nos. 6 and 1 respectively in FIR
No. 224 of 2022 have fi led the present Special Leave Petition against
the impugned judgment and fi nal order dated 17.10.2022 passed by
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 15174 of 2022, whereby the Hon'ble High Court has
dismissed the said Writ Petition fi led by the Petitioners under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of FIR No. 224 of
2022 dated 19.09.2022 registered under Sections 395, 504, 506 & 323
of the Indian Penal Code against six accused persons namely, Mohd.
Iqbal alias Bala (Petitioner No. 2 herein), Mehmood Ali (Brother
of Petitioner No. 2), Afjal (Son of Petitioner No. 2), Alishan (Son of
Petitioner No. 2), Javed (Son of Petitioner No. 2), and Mohammad
Wajid (Petitioner No. 1 herein and son of Petitioner No. 2) at Police
Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur.
2. The allegation in the said FIR No. 224 of 2022 dated 19.09.2022
is that the Complainant Ram Kumar (Respondent No. 4 herein), who
is a resident of Village Kasimpur, Mirzapur, District Saharanpur, is
recorded as a tenure holder of land situated at Khasra No. 256/1,
Village Mayapur, Mirzapur, District Saharanpur. It is further alleged
that the accused Haji Iqbal (Petitioner No. 2 herein) and his sons
Javed, Mohammad Wajid (Petitioner No. 1 herein), Alishan, Afjal
and his brother Mehmood Ali had earlier claimed that the said land
bearing Khasra No. 256/1 belonged to them. In the year 2021, when
the Complainant and his bother Raj Kumar went to Petitioner No.
2's house situated at Mirzapur, Saharanpur and requested him not to
disturb the peace and tranquility of their land upon which Petitioner
No. 2 Iqbal, Mehmood Ali, Javed, Petitioner No.1 Mahmood Wajid,
Alishan and Afzal abused the Complainant and thereafter they
assaulted him and his brother Raj Kumar with their hands and fi sts.
MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P.
AND ORS. [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
322
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
It is further alleged that the accused persons then pointed a pistol on
the Complainant's forehead and forcibly took an amount of Rs. 2 lakh
from the Complainant's pocket. The accused persons threatened the
Complainant that in case he told anyone about the incident then all
his family members will be eliminated. It is further alleged that the
accused persons forcibly got the signatures of the Complainant and his
brother on a blank stamp paper and after being robbed of their money
the Complainant and his brother quietly returned home.
3. It is respectfully submitted that the alleged First Information
Report is absolutely false and frivolous, and on a reading of the
said FIR, the off ence of dacoity is clearly not made out against
the Petitioners. It is highly doubtful that the Complainant, who
was aware of the criminal history of Petitioner No. 2 Iqbal, would
go to the house of the accused Petitioner No. 2 with a huge sum
of money, that is, Rs. 2 lakh in his pocket and after the alleged
incident would remain silent for one year. Although it is alleged
that the Complainant and his brother Raj Kumar were assaulted by
the accused persons however there is no injury or medical report
whatsoever to substantiate the said allegation.
4. The allegations in the First Information Report are not only vague
but also highly improbable given that except for the bald allegation that
the incident occurred in the year 2021, there is no mention of the date
and time of incident in the FIR. The said incident allegedly occurred
in the year 2021, while the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate
delay of 1 year, that is, on 19.09.2022. On a reading of the FIR it is
evident that the entire dispute is with respect to the land situated at
Khasra No. 256/1, Village Mayapur, Mirzapur, District Saharanpur.
It is pertinent to submit that the Petitioners are neither the owner of
the land nor have they got anything to do with the said land and there
was therefore no question of the Petitioners having threatened and
assaulted the Complainant.
5. It is submitted that after the change of Government in the State of
Uttar Pradesh in the year 2017, the ruling party came to power and
immediately after the change of the Government the Petitioners along
323
with their family members were falsely implicated in more than 30
criminal cases at the behest of the ruling party. The Petitioners are
being unnecessarily harassed by the State machinery including the
Police. Although the Respondent State is heavily relying upon the
criminal cases registered against the Petitioners and their family
members to show that they are habitual off enders but till date the
petitioners have not been convicted by any Court of law and moreover
every time the Petitioners or their family members gets protection
(anticipatory bail or stay of arrest) from either this Hon'ble Court or
the Hon'ble High Court, the local police immediately registers false
cases against them.
6. It is submitted that the alleged Look Out Notice dated 10.05.2022
was issued much prior to the registration of the present FIR No.
224 of 2022 which was registered on 19.09.2022 and as such is
inconsequential.
7. It is respectfully submitted that the alleged First Information Report
has been maliciously instituted at the behest of the present ruling party
in the State of Uttar Pradesh to wreak vengeance and to settle political
scores with Petitioner No. 2 Mohd. Iqbal alias Bala as he belongs
to a rival political party and he was also a Member of Legislative
Council from the period 2011 to 2016. Petitioner No. 2 Mohd. Iqbal
alias Bala belongs to a respectable family of Saharanpur and he is
running several Charitable Institutions.
8. The allegations made in the First Information Report do not prima
facie constitute any off ence or make out a case under Sections 395, 504,
506 and 323 IPC against the Petitioner and thus, the FIR is liable to
be quashed. It is pertinent to mention that even after the charge sheet
has been fi led, the petition for quashing of a FIR is well within the
powers of a Court of law [Please see: Anand Kumar Mohatta and
another VS. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home & Another
(2019) 11 SCC 706 at paragraph 14 & 16]
9. For the reasons mentioned above, the Special Leave Petition may
be allowed and the order of the Hon'ble High Court refusing to quash
the FIR No. 224 of 2022 dated 19.09.2022 be set aside."
MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P.
AND ORS. [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
324
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
8. Ms. Garima Prasad, the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State of U.P. in her written submissions has stated as under:-
"A. NO AFFIDAVIT OR VAKALATNAMA FILED BY ACCUSED
IQBAL @ HAJI IQBAL @ BALA, ACCUSED MEHMOOD AND
DILSHAD - NO RELIEF CAN BE GIVEN TO PETITION FILED
BY THIRD PARTIES
• That the instant SLPs have been fi led by a third party. The Accused
Iqbal @ Haji Iqbal @ Bala nor the other petitioners have signed the
vakalatnama and affi davit and Iqbal is absconding from the law. Even,
the Writ Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. fi led before the Hon'ble
High Court, has not been signed by Iqbal himself. No relief can be
granted to those who have not approached this Hon'ble Court.
• Accused Iqbal has absconded from the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court and has in all likelihood absconded from the country. It is
humbly submitted that a person who is not within the jurisdiction of
this Hon'ble Court and has not signed any affi davit or vakalatnama,
cannot be entitled for any relief.
Ï% The accused have selectively brought only a few cases before this
Hon'ble Court leaving the more heinous and gross cases.
B. Iqbal @ Haji Iqbal @ Bala is the Most Wanted Criminal in the
area of Mirjapur District Saharanpur creating terror in the minds of
the citizens. He is a known sand mafi a, land grabber having grabbed
Government Land, Forest Land, Poor Farmers' Land and built a
university namely Glocal University, Saharanpur in the area of
more than 700 Acres. The Offi ce of Senior Superintendent of Police,
Meerut Zone, Meerut, vide its offi ce memo dated 11.02.2023, has
declared Iqbal @ Bala a most wanted criminal with a prize money
of Rs. 1,00,000/-
• PROTECTION OF EARLIER DISPENSATION: It is evident that
the Crime world of Accused Iqbal and his family has grown over the
past decades with support of earlier dispensation/Government(s), and
325
that is why the criminal cases registered against him in the years 1990
- 1993, were withdrawn by the earlier Government(s). The Accused
Iqbal terrorized the people, he is a known name of terror in the area of
District Saharanpur or Western State of Uttar Pradesh, due to which,
no FIR(s)/Criminal cases were registered against the Accused Iqbal
and his family members.
• LOOK OUT NOTICES: The accused Iqbal is absconding from the
process and the number of Look Out Circulars were issued against
him. But the Accused Iqbal has not appeared even once in any case
and has already absconded. A person who does not cooperate with
the investigation, no relief can be granted to him.
• NOTICES U/S SECTION 41: A large number of notices under
section 41A Cr.P.C. have been issued in a large number of cases. were
issued to the accused Iqbal @ Bala, despite the service of notices, the
Accused Iqbal neither appeared nor joined the investigation in any
criminal case.
• HISTORY SHEETER GANGSTER GANG LEADER : The
Accused Haji Iqbal @ Mohd. Iqbal @ Bala is a history-sheeter, gang
leader, known name of terror, if any relief to be given to such type of
criminals, who are publicly involved in rape cases, dacoity cases,
fraud cases, land grabbing cases, extortion cases etc will send a wrong
message/signal to the society and those persons/victims who come
against these wrongdoers will never get justice and no one will ever
raise their voices against these criminals in future.
• So far as concerned, admitted with the change of Government,
complainant/terrifi ed people, aggrieved peoples, have been able
to come forward to lodge or register complaints against the
Accused Iqbal. Due to illegal support of earlier Government(s),
no complaint or criminal cases were registered against them. Now,
they have come forward to register their grievances. In the present
Government, the number of aggrieved People, Terrifi ed People/
Complainant(s) have been able to come forward to register or
raise a voice against the Accused Iqbal. On the basis of criminal
complaint(s) actions were taken against the Accused Iqbal and his
family members.
• Even, if these are false cases, the honest or law abiding persons
should join the investigation but the accused Iqbal is evading all notices
MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P.
AND ORS. [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
326
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
and has not joined any investigation in any criminal case, and hence
Look Out Notices have been issued.
• It is pertinent to mention here that in all criminal cases, the
complainants are diff erent and the crime is diff erent and some accused
are also diff erent.
• Further, it is pertinent to mention that the Accused Iqbal and his
family regularly threatened the witnesses.
• The Accused Iqbal should be called upon to submit and appear
before this Hon'ble Court or any court of law.
• The Accused Iqbal is a land mafi a, sand mafi a, rapists, gangster.
• The Accused Iqbal started committing fraud, theft and robbery cases
in the initial days. Eventually, he became involved in the illegal mining
cases and became a gang leader. Thereafter, the Accused Iqbal started
to grab the forest land as well as government land in the District of
Saharanpur. His family members and close associates also started to
grab the land of the poor people.
• The Accused Mohd. Iqbal @ Bala is the mining mafi a in western
part of state of Uttar Pradesh and several number of criminal cases
are registered against him and his family members.
• The Accused Mohd. Iqbal, Resident of District Saharanpur and ExMember, Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council (BSP MLC) is involved in
the various criminal activities. The main allegations against Mohd.
Iqbal are as follows:
• Amassed disproportionate assets;
• Incorporated a number of sham companies under the Companies
Act, 1956, many of which have dummy directors or fictitious
shareholders;
• Used Golbal University in Saharanpur (located in exceeding area
more than 700 acres, where he is the founder Chancellor and managed
by the Abdul Waheed Educational and Charitable Trust, a trust set
327
up in in his father's name with his family members as its trustees,
for creating assets out of money illegally earned through the mining
contracts.
• The Accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala and his family members are involved
in illegal mining cases, land grabbing cases, fraud cases and other
criminal cases including rape, dacoity and others.
• The Accused Iqbal @ Bala, being Gang leader, and his gang
members are criminal minded persons and indulges in anti-social
activities and the Petitioners, to gain the illegal money, are involved in
illegal mining business, grabbing the government and non-government
land by taking illegal possession.
• It is submitted that the fact that the complaints may have been
initiated by reason of political vendetta is not in itself ground for
quashing the criminal proceedings.
• That the section 482 of the Cr.P.C. provides:- "482. Saving of
inherent powers of High Court - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed
to limit or aff ect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give eff ect to any order under this Code,
or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice."
• That this Hon'ble Court has held in Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State
of U.P. reported as (2008) 8 SCC 781, that inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr. P. C has to be exercised sparingly, carefully
and with caution and only when such exercise is justifi ed by the tests
specifi cally laid down in the section itself.
• That further, it is pertinent to mention that this Hon'ble Court has
held in case Mrs. Dhanalakshmi Vs R. Prasanna Kumar, reported as
AIR 1990 SC 494 that in exceptional cases, to prevent of the powers of
Court, the High Court might in exercise of its inherent powers under
section 482 Cr. P.C. quash criminal proceedings. However, interference
would only be justifi ed when complaint did not disclose any off ence,
or was patently frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.
MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P.
AND ORS. [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
In the present case, the FIR/Crime No. 122/2022 U/s 376, 323, 354(A)
IPC & Section 7, 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 was registered at P.S. Mahila
Thana, District Saharanpur disclosed the glaring facts and there are
serious allegations against the Accused Iqbal and other accused. The
facts of the FIR No. 122 of 2022 prima facie reveals commissions of
cognizable off ence.
The Accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala has been involved in more than 45
criminal cases including rape cases, illegal mining, land grabbing,
fraud cases, assault cases and other criminal cases since 1990. The
fi rst FIR was registered against the Accused Iqbal in 1990 i.e. FIR No.
57 of 1990 U/s 379, 411 IPC and Section 26 of Forest Act at Mirzapur
Police Station. However, due to earlier Government(s) supports, no
legal actions were taken against the Accused Iqbal and his family
members. The following criminal cases are registered against the
Accused Iqbal are as follows:-
Sr.
No.
FIR/Crime
No.
Under Section
Police Station
District
1.
57 of 1990
379, 411 IPC and section 26
Forest Act
Mirzapur
Saharanpur
2.
53 of 1991
379, 411 IPC and section
4/10 Forest Act
Chilkana
Saharanpur
3.
217 of 1993
147, 323, 504, 506 IPC
Behat
Saharanpur
4.
302 of 2016
420, 467, 468, 471 IPC
Ecotech third
Gautambudh
Nagar
5.
196 of 2017
420, 406, 506 IPC
Mirzapur
Saharanpur
6.
246 of 2017
452, 323, 504, 506, 354,
147, 148, 386, 420, 467,
468, 471, 120B IPC
Sadar Bajar
Saharanpur
7.
39 of 2018
420, 467, 468, 471 IPC
Janakpuri,
Saharanpur
8.
52 of 2018
147, 148, 149, 352, 504,
147, 148, 386, 420, 467,
468, 471, 120B IPC
Section 3(2)(5)A SC/ST Act
and Section 7 Criminal Law
Amendment Act
Sadar Bajar
Saharanpur
329
9.
65 of 2018
403, 447, 506, 120B IPC
Mirzapur
Saharanpur
10.
165 of 2018
2/3 Gangster Act
Mirzapur
Saharanpur
11.
177 of 2019
420, 504, 506, 467, 468,
471 IPC
Mirzapur
Saharanpur
12.
178 of 2019
406, 342, 392, 504, 506,
354 IPC
Mirzapur
Saharanpur
13.
587 of 2019
120B,167, 467, 468, 471
IPC
Sadar Bajar
Saharanpur
14.
519 of 2021
420, 466, 467, 468, 471,
120B IPC
Behat
Saharanpur
15.
83 of 2022
2/3 Gangster Act
Mirzapur
Saharanpur
16.
97 of 2022
504, 506, 386 IPC
Mirzapur
Saharanpur
17.
101 of 2022
504,506 IPC
Mirzapur
Saharanpur
18.
102 of 2022
420, 467, 468, 471 IPC
Mirzapur
Saharanpur
19.
89 of 87-88
Badkala Forest
Range
20.
29 of 89-90
Badkala Forest
Range
21.
173 of 89-90
Badkala Forest
Range
22.
53 of 91
4/10 Forest Act
Behat
Saharanpur
23.
70 of 91-92
Behat
Saharanpur
24.
71 of 91-92
Behat
Saharanpur
25.
72 of 91-92
Behat
Saharanpur
26.
103 of 1992
379, 411 IPC and 26 of
Forest Act
Behat
Saharanpur
27.
104 of 1994
379, 411 IPC and section 26
of Forest Act
Behat
Saharanpur
28.
105 of 1992
379, 411 IPC and section 26
of Forest Act
Behat
Saharanpur
29.
32 of 2001
147, 148, 306 IPC
Yamuna Nagar,
Yamuna
Nagar,
Haryana
MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P.
AND ORS. [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
FIR No. 224 of 2022 U/s 395, 504, 506, 323 IPC:-
c) The Petitioners and other accused robbed the Complainant and his
brother and got the signature on stamp papers of the aforementioned
land forcefully.
d) Further, it was alleged in that due to terror of the Petitioners
and their family, no other family members have supported to lodge
the complaint, but after seeing that the other aggrieved persons are
taking action against the Petitioners and their family members, the
complainant decided to lodge the complaint against the Petitioners
and other accused persons for the said criminal incident.
e) The Investigation Officer also recorded the statement of the
independent witnesses and collected the other material evidence
against the Petitioners and other accused persons, which prima facie
shows that the Petitioners ad other accused persons have committed
the serious off ences.
f) The Investigation has been completed and chargesheet is ready to
fi le against the Petitioners but due to stay order dated 28.11.2022 of
this Hon'ble Court, the chargesheet could not be submitted.
SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF DELAY
a) The impugned first information report prima facie reveals
commission of cognizable off ences and which inspire confi dence that it
is clear from the contents of the FIR that serious crime was committed
by the Petitioners and other accused persons.
b) The Dacoity is defi ned under section 391 IPC, which stipulates that
when fi ve or more persons conjointly or attempt to commit a robbery
or, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or
attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding
such commission or attempt, amount to fi ve or more, every person so
committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit "dacoity.
c) Further, the robbery has defi ned under section 390 IPC, which
stipulates that Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the
theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to
carry away property obtained by the theft, the off ender, for that end,
331
voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt
or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of
instant wrongful restraint.
In the present case, the other accused persons (total 6 accused persons)
have looted & extorted the complainant. The contents of the FIR prima
facie reveals that the Complainant, when they visited the house of the
Petitioners, he was looted and wrongful restrained by the Petitioners.
The petitioners and the other accused persons, as such, prima facie
involved in the off ences as mentioned in the FIR.
d) Recently, this Hon'ble Court has held in case Mahendra Prasad
Tiwari Vs Amit Kumar Tiwari & Anr reported as 2022 SCC Online
SC 1057 held that delay is registration of the FIR is not a ground to
discharge.
e) This Hon'ble Court has held in case Thakur Ram v. State of
Bihar, reported as (1966) 2 SCR 740, that barring a few exceptions,
in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is
the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community
at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for
bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the
community to book.
f) This Hon'ble Court has held in case Sheonandan Paswan v. State
of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 288
17. It is undoubtedly true that the prosecution against Dr.
Jagannath Mishra was initiated by the successor government of
Karpoori Thakur after Dr. Jagannath Mishra went out of power.
But that by itself cannot support the inference that the initiation
of the prosecution was actuated by political vendetta or mala
fi des because it is quite possible that there might be material
justifying the initiation of prosecution against Dr. Jagannath
Mishra and the successor government might have legitimately
felt that there was a case for initiation of prosecution and that
is why the prosecution might have been initiated. There would
be nothing wrong on the part of the successor government in
doing so and the prosecution cannot be said to be vitiated on
MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P.
AND ORS. [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
332
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
that account. This is precisely what Hidayatullah, J. speaking for
the Constitution Bench pointed out in Krishna Ballabh Sahay v.
Commission of Enquiry [AIR 1969 SC 258 : (1969) 1 SCR 387,
393 : 1969 Cri LJ 520] :
"The contention that the power cannot be exercised by the
succeeding Ministry has been answered already by this Court
in two cases.