* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved On: 14th September, 2023

Judgment Delivered On: 8th November, 2023

+ W.P.(CRL) 712/2022 & CRL.M.A. 5985/2022 (stay)

RASHMEE KANSAL ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr.Sunil K.Mittal, Advocate,
Mr.Kshitij Mittal, Mr.Anshul Mittal,
Mr.Harshit Vashisht and Mr.Sarthak
Sharma, Advocates

versus

THE STATE AND ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr.Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC (Crl.)
with Mr.Alok Sharma, Advocate.
Mr.S.K. Sharma and Mr.Rohan
Kumar, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

JUDGMENT
W.P.(CRL) 712/2022
1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR
No.264/2017 dated 4th July, 2017 under Sections 326-B/506 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
2.1. The petitioner is the sister-in-law of the respondent no.2 and both
reside in a common property. The petitioner and her husband reside on the
ground floor, while the respondent no.2 and her family resides on the second

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.11.2023
W.P.(CRL) 712/2022 12:40:56 Page 1 of 10
floor of the said property.
2.2. On 16th March, 2017, a PCR call was received by the police from the
son of the respondent no.2 stating that someone had thrown acid on his
mother.
2.3. Upon reaching the spot, the police found that the respondent no.2 was
taken to the BSA Hospital, Rohini for treatment. The police also found an
unknown liquid substance on the floor.
2.4. In the MLC it is stated that an unknown substance was thrown on the
body of the respondent no.2 and she was having an itching sensation. The
doctor preparing the MLC recorded that nature of injuries on the respondent
no.2 were simple in nature and there were no external injuries at the time of
admission. However, she was rendered unfit for statement.
2.5. The respondent no.2 was declared fit for statement on 17th March,
2017 and her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was recorded by the police. In her statement, the
respondent no.2 stated that her sister-in-law/the petitioner had thrown a hot
liquid that fell on her right shoulder and her clothes. After the said incident,
the respondent no.2 rushed outside and fell down, thereby becoming
unconscious.
2.6. Samples of the liquid collected from the spot of incidence were sent to
the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. As per the FSL
report, the liquid substance collected from the tiles and the floor was found
to be Hydrochloric Acid.
2.7. Based on the FSL report, and lack of any burn injuries on the person
of the respondent no.2, FIR No.264/2017 under Sections 326-B/506 of the
IPC was registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.11.2023
W.P.(CRL) 712/2022 12:40:56 Page 2 of 10
3. As per the Status Report, chargesheet was filed before the Trial Court
on 11th January, 2018. Thereafter, an application seeking further
investigation was filed by the respondent no.2, which was allowed by the
Trial Court on 25th January, 2019.
4. During further investigation, statement of the husband of the
respondent no.2 was recorded wherein, he had stated that he had handed
over the saree and blouse of the respondent no.2 to the police without any
seizure memo. However, these facts could not be confirmed as the
Investigating Officer (IO) had since expired.
5. CCTV footage of the incident could not be procured as CCTV footage
beyond 2 years was not stored in the system. The report qua further
investigation was filed before the Trial Court on 13th April, 2022.
6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made the following
submissions:
i. The present FIR is frivolous and vexatious and has been filed by the
respondent no.2 in order to harass the petitioner due to ongoing property
dispute between the parties.
ii. The respondent no.2 and her family have been attempting to grab the
terrace of the house and are interfering in the peaceful occupation of the
petitioner.
iii. Apprehending unauthorised construction in the disputed property, the
petitioner, along with her husband had filed a police complaint dated 8th
June, 2016.
iv. Another complaint was filed on 20th July, 2016 before the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (MCD) by one Mr. Binod Kumar Padia, who was
residing on the first floor of the property, stating that the husband of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.11.2023
W.P.(CRL) 712/2022 12:40:56 Page 3 of 10
respondent no.2 had started raising unauthorised construction in the said
property.
v. This Court has the power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the
present proceedings for being false and an abuse of the process of law. In
this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court
in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604.
7. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2.
Counsel for the respondent no.2 has made the following submissions:
i. The present petition seeking quashing of FIR has been filed in a
belated manner. It is denied that there was no property dispute
between the parties which resulted in filing of the present FIR. There
is no civil case pending with regard to the property.
ii. As per the FSL report, Hydrochloric Acid was found on the floor.
Further as per the MLC, the petitioner was unfit to give statement on
16th March, 2017, the date of incident. The police were deficient in
their investigation in as much as clothes of the respondent no.2 were
not sent for examination to FSL in collusion with the accused persons.
8. I have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material on
record.
9. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the petitioner threw a liquid
on the respondent no.2 which fell on her right shoulder and on her blouse
and saree. Immediately the respondent no.2 was taken to the hospital.
However, as per the discharge summary prepared by the hospital, there was
no external injury found on the respondent no.2 at the time of admission.
10. In the Form-1 of the Delhi Police Control Room (PCR Form), it has
specifically been recorded that as per the doctor who attended to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.11.2023
W.P.(CRL) 712/2022 12:40:56 Page 4 of 10
respondent no.2, there is no sign of acid and it is a case of old illness. The
relevant extracts from the said form are set out below: -
“Dr ne btaya ki tejab wali koi baat nhi hai pehli koi bemari
hai.”
11. Even though as per the FSL report traces of acid were found on the
tiles, there is nothing to show that this was allegedly thrown on the body of
the respondent no. 2.
12. The statements given by the two maids to the police on 16th March,
2017 also do not support the case of the prosecution. Statement of
Ms.Pushpa Goel, the alleged eye witness, was recorded under Section 161 of
the CrPC on 4th July, 2017, wherein, she had stated that she saw the
petitioner throw something from a white container on the respondent no.2.
However, there is nothing to suggest that the liquid thrown was actually
acid.
13. The petitioner has placed on record a previous complaint dated 8th
June 2016 made by the husband of the petitioner, written to the SHO,
Shalimar Bagh regarding unauthorized construction in their residential
property. Another complaint dated 20th July, 2016 was also made to the
MCD by one Mr.Binod Kumar Padia, another resident residing in the
property, regarding the said unauthorized construction being carried out by
the husband of the respondent no.2.
14. A perusal of the aforesaid complaints reveal that there was an ongoing
dispute between the petitioner and her husband on one hand and the
respondent no.2 and her husband on the other, with regard to the rights over
the terrace of the property. I had queried the husband of the respondent no.2,
who was present in Court, whether there was any property dispute between
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.11.2023
W.P.(CRL) 712/2022 12:40:56 Page 5 of 10
them. The husband of the respondent no.2 replied that there is no property
dispute, as the entire property belonged to him, which is contrary to the
claim of the petitioner and her husband. This clearly suggests that there was
a property dispute between the parties.
15. Under Section 326-B of the IPC, an offence is made out only if a
person throws or attempts to throw ‘acid’ on another person, and not any
other liquid or substance. If indeed the liquid that was thrown on the
respondent no.2 by the petitioner was ‘acid’, then the respondent no.2 would
have suffered external injuries and traces of the acid would have been found
on her body.
16. Even if it is assumed that what was thrown on the respondent no.2
was a diluted Hydrochloric Acid, it would surely leave marks and
inflammation on the skin. It is pertinent to note that as per the MLC there
were no external injuries or any scar on the body of the respondent no.2.
Further, the statement of the doctor recorded in the PCR Form confirms that
there was no acid found on the body of the respondent no.2. Rather, it stated
that the respondent no.2 had been suffering from old ailments.
17. There are no allegations in the FIR to substantiate any offence under
Section 506 of the IPC with regard to criminal intimidation.
18. The Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), has laid down the
following category of cases wherein the inherent powers of the High Court
under Section 482 of the CrPC can be exercised to quash the proceedings to
prevent abuse of process of law or secure the ends of justice:
“108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.11.2023
W.P.(CRL) 712/2022 12:40:56 Page 6 of 10
 under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
xxx xxx xxx
(5) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

xxx xxx xxx

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with

mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.

109. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power
of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of
rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R or the complaint
and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim
or caprice.”

19. Similar views have been expressed by the Supreme Court in a recent
judgment in Iqbal v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 949. The relevant
observations are reproduced hereunder:

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.11.2023
W.P.(CRL) 712/2022 12:40:56 Page 7 of 10
 “10. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty
to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say
so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal
vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is
very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The
complainant would ensure that the averments made in the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will
not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments
made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence 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. The Court
while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC
or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only
to the stage of a case but 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. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs
have been registered over a period of time. It is in the
background of such circumstances the registration of multiple
FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of
wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as
alleged.”

20. A reading of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court makes it

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.11.2023
W.P.(CRL) 712/2022 12:40:56 Page 8 of 10
amply clear that in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
CrPC, the High Court has the power to quash an FIR and/or criminal
proceedings on the ground that the said proceedings are manifestly frivolous
or vexatious or instituted with ulterior motive. The High Court can go
beyond the averments made in the FIR/complaint and ‘read between the
lines’ to examine if the ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are made
out or not. In order to achieve this, the High Court can take into account the
overall facts and circumstances of the case and the material collected in the
course of investigation. Of course, while exercising the aforesaid powers, the
High Court must exercise due caution, care and circumspection.
21. Applying the aforesaid legal principles to the facts and circumstances
of the present case, I am satisfied that the present FIR has been filed in a
mala fide manner on account of the dispute between the parties relating to
the property where they reside. The allegations made in the FIR are
inherently improbable and no material has been collected in the course of
investigation in support of the allegations against the petitioner. The judicial
conscience of this Court is satisfied that the criminal proceedings initiated
against the petitioner are a misuse of the process of the Court and an
unnecessary burden on the State exchequer and ought to be quashed in
exercise of the inherent powers vested under Section 482 of the CrPC.
22. I do not find merit in the submission of the respondent no.2 that once
a chargesheet has been filed, a petition for quashing of FIR cannot be filed.
23. It is a settled principle of law that an FIR can be quashed even after
the filing of the chargesheet. Powers of the High Court under Section 482 of
the CrPC are wide and can be exercised at any stage to prevent abuse of
process of Court or to secure needs of justice. Reference in this regard may
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.11.2023
W.P.(CRL) 712/2022 12:40:56 Page 9 of 10
be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2019 11 SCC 706.
24. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No.264/2017
registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh and the consequential charge
sheet dated 11th January, 2018 and the proceedings pursuant thereto are
hereby quashed.

AMIT BANSAL, J.
NOVEMBER 8, 2023
rt

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.11.2023
W.P.(CRL) 712/2022 12:40:56 Page 10 of 10