Delhi HC quashes acid attack FIR citing property dispute

New Delhi [India], November 9 : The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR lodged over an alleged acid attack on a woman by another woman.
The high court said that there is a property dispute between the parties and the FIR was lodged in a malafide manner. The FIR was registered at Shalimar Marg police station in 2017.
On Wednesday, Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the FIR after considering the status report of the Delhi police, the medico-legal case (MLC) of the victim and submissions made on behalf of both parties.
Justice Bansal said, "I am satisfied that the present FIR has been filed in a malafide manner on account of the dispute between the parties relating to the property where they reside."
He added that the allegations made in the FIR are inherently improbable and no material has been collected in the course of the investigation in support of the allegations against the petitioner.
The bench termed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner a misuse of process of the court. It also reiterated the contention of the respondent or victim that a charge sheet has been filed and therefore the FIR cannot be quashed.
Justice Bansal observed, "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."
"I do not find merit in the submission of respondent no 2 that once a chargesheet has been filed, a petition for quashing the FIR cannot be filed," Justice Bansal said in the judgement passed on November 8.
Referring to an earlier judgement by the Supreme Court, the High Court said, "It is a settled principle of law that an FIR can be quashed even after 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."
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, the judgment said.
Justice Bansal added that 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.
The petitioner Rashmi Kansal had moved a petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR dated 4th July, 2017 under Sections 326-B/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh.
It was the case of the petitioner that she is the sister-in-law of the respondent/victim 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 floor of the said property.
On 16th March, 2017, the son of the victim made a PCR call stating that someone had thrown acid on his mother.
Delhi police collected the 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.
The high court took note of 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 victim there is no sign of acid and it is a case of old illness.
The bench further noted that 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 victim.
The high court also noted that the statements given by the two maids to the police on 16th March, 2017 also do not support the case of the prosecution. In her Statement, Pushpa Goel, the alleged eye witness, she had stated that she saw the petitioner throw something from a white container on the victim.
However, there is nothing to suggest that the liquid thrown was actually acid.