LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an FIR and subsequent charge sheet can be quashed if there is a significant delay in filing the FIR, lack of specific details about the incident, and no corroborating evidence from affected parties.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
Judgment Date: May 15, 2024
Date of the Judgment: May 15, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 415
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Satish Chandra Sharma, J., and Sandeep Mehta, J.
Can a criminal case be sustained when the complainant is unsure of the date of the alleged offense, and there is a significant delay in reporting the incident to the police? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a property dispute, ultimately quashing the FIR and subsequent charge sheet due to lack of specific details and corroborating evidence. The bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Sandeep Mehta, with the judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Case Background
The case revolves around a property dispute in Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Barkat Ali, the complainant (respondent No. 5), purchased a plot of land (Survey No. 559/1Chh/30) from Geeta Rai, with a registered sale deed for 10 decimals executed on December 20, 2017. He claimed possession of this land. An adjacent plot was purchased by Sushma Kashyap in 2016. Both Barkat Ali and Sushma Kashyap had allegedly constructed houses on their respective plots.
Barkat Ali alleged that Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur (the appellant) and Saurabh Pratap Singh Thakur trespassed onto his land and Sushma Kashyap’s land before May 20, 2019. They allegedly demolished Barkat Ali’s boundary wall and Sushma Kashyap’s under-construction house, stealing construction materials. Barkat Ali claimed losses of ₹6 lakhs, while Sushma Kashyap allegedly suffered losses of ₹4 lakhs.
Barkat Ali stated that when he confronted the accused, they threatened him in the presence of witnesses. Based on this, FIR No. 590 of 2019 was registered at P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, against the accused under Sections 447, 427, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The police filed a charge sheet against the accused, showing them as absconding.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016 | Sushma Kashyap purchases a plot of land adjacent to Barkat Ali’s plot from Geeta Rai. |
| December 20, 2017 | Barkat Ali executes a registered sale deed for 10 decimals of land purchased from Geeta Rai. |
| Prior to May 20, 2019 | Alleged trespass and demolition of boundary wall and under-construction house by Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur and Saurabh Pratap Singh Thakur. |
| June 29, 2019 | FIR No. 590 of 2019 is registered at P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur. |
| 2020 | Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur and Saurabh Pratap Singh Thakur file a writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR, which was later withdrawn. |
| August 2, 2023 | The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejects the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for quashing the FIR and charge sheet. |
| May 15, 2024 | The Supreme Court of India allows the appeal and quashes the FIR and subsequent proceedings. |
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
- Section 447 IPC: Punishment for criminal trespass.
- Section 427 IPC: Punishment for committing mischief and thereby causing damage.
- Section 294 IPC: Punishment for obscene acts and songs.
- Section 506 IPC: Punishment for criminal intimidation.
- Section 34 IPC: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur):
- The entire case set up by the complainant is false and fabricated.
- Sushma Kashyap, whose under-construction house was allegedly damaged, did not file a complaint.
- The site inspection memo did not find any damage to the boundary wall on Barkat Ali’s plot, as alleged in the FIR.
- The FIR and charge sheet should be quashed because the ingredients of the alleged offenses are not made out.
- The appellant had lodged FIR No. 227 of 2014 against Satraj Ali, a witness for the complainant, suggesting the present FIR is a counterblast.
- There was a significant delay in lodging the FIR (more than 39 days), with no explanation provided.
- The complainant was unsure of the date of the incident, indicating vague and uncertain allegations.
State of Chhattisgarh’s Arguments:
- The complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the accused.
- During the investigation, statements of Barkat Ali, Sushma Kashyap, and Rajkumar Kashyap affirmed the allegations in the FIR.
- The appellant failed to make a case for interference in the impugned order and charge sheet.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Appellant | Sub-Submissions by State |
|---|---|---|
| False and Fabricated Case |
✓ Sushma Kashyap did not file a complaint. ✓ Site inspection found no damage to boundary wall. ✓ Ingredients of offences not made out. ✓ FIR is a counterblast to previous FIR. |
✓ Complainant had no motive to falsely implicate. ✓ Statements of witnesses affirm allegations. |
| Delay in Filing FIR |
✓ Delay of more than 39 days with no explanation. ✓ Complainant unsure of date of incident. |
✓ Investigation was conducted properly. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue the court addressed was:
- Whether the FIR and subsequent charge sheet should be quashed given the significant delay in filing the FIR, the lack of specific details about the incident, and the absence of corroborating evidence from affected parties.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the FIR and charge sheet should be quashed due to delay and lack of evidence? | The Court quashed the FIR and charge sheet. It noted the significant delay of 39 days in filing the FIR without any explanation, the complainant’s uncertainty about the date of the incident, and the lack of corroborating evidence from Sushma Kashyap, who was allegedly also affected. The court also noted that the site inspection did not support the claim of damage to the complainant’s boundary wall. |
Authorities
The judgment does not explicitly cite any specific case laws or books. However, it refers to the following legal provisions:
- Sections 447, 427, 294, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): These sections define the offenses for which the FIR was registered.
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s claim of false case due to lack of complaint from Sushma Kashyap and no damage found in site inspection | The Court agreed, noting that Sushma Kashyap did not lodge a complaint and the site plan did not show damage to the complainant’s boundary wall. |
| Appellant’s claim of delay in filing FIR and vague allegations | The Court agreed, noting the 39-day delay without explanation and the complainant’s uncertainty about the date of the incident. |
| State’s argument that complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the accused and that statements of witnesses affirm allegations | The Court did not find these arguments persuasive, noting the lack of corroborating evidence and the possibility of animus between the parties. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The court primarily relied on its own assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case, rather than specific authorities. However, it considered the following:
- The Court considered the provisions of Sections 447, 427, 294, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), but found that the ingredients of the offenses were not made out based on the facts presented.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Lack of Specificity: The complainant’s uncertainty about the date of the incident and the significant delay in filing the FIR raised doubts about the veracity of the allegations.
- Absence of Corroboration: The fact that Sushma Kashyap, who was also allegedly affected, did not file a complaint, and the site inspection did not support the claim of damage to the complainant’s boundary wall, weakened the complainant’s case.
- Potential for Vengeance: The Court noted the possibility of animus between the complainant and the accused, suggesting the FIR might be a tool for vengeance.
- Lack of ingredients for Section 294 IPC: The court noted that the ingredients for the offense under Section 294 of IPC were not made out.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of Specificity in FIR | 30% |
| Absence of Corroboration | 30% |
| Potential for Vengeance | 30% |
| Lack of ingredients for Section 294 IPC | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
Ratio: Fact:Law
The court’s decision was primarily driven by the factual inconsistencies and lack of evidence (70%), with legal considerations (30%) playing a secondary role. The court emphasized that the FIR seemed to be a tool for vengeance rather than a genuine complaint.
Issue: Whether FIR should be quashed due to delay and lack of evidence?
Step 1: Complainant unsure of date of incident and 39-day delay in filing FIR.
Step 2: No complaint from Sushma Kashyap, and site inspection did not corroborate damage.
Step 3: Court notes possibility of animus and FIR being a tool for vengeance.
Conclusion: FIR and charge sheet quashed.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the lack of specific details, the absence of corroborating evidence, and the potential for misuse of the legal process. The court found that the FIR did not meet the threshold for a valid criminal case.
The Court observed, “A bare perusal of the impugned FIR would reveal that the same was lodged by complainant -Barkat Ali on 29th June, 2019 with the allegation that the offences alleged were committed by the appellant and co -accused some time prior to 20th May, 2019.”
The Court also stated, “The site plan indicates that there is some damage to the under -construction house of Sushma Kashyap. In the FIR, the damage suffered by the complainant was quantified at Rs. 6 lakhs whereas the damage suffered by Smt. Sushma Kashyap was quantified as Rs. 4 lakhs owing to the demolition of her under construction house. However, admittedly, Smt . Sushma did not lodge any complaint to the police.”
The Court further noted, “The FIR which was lodged after 39 days of the incident, does not indicate the date or time, when the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant and caused damage to his property and committed the other offences for which the FIR came to be registered. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned FIR seems to be nothing but a tool to wreak vengeance against the appellant herein.”
Key Takeaways
- Importance of Timely Reporting: A significant delay in filing an FIR without a valid explanation can weaken the case.
- Need for Specific Allegations: Vague and uncertain allegations, especially regarding the date and time of the incident, can be detrimental to a criminal case.
- Corroborating Evidence: The absence of corroborating evidence from affected parties can cast doubt on the veracity of the allegations.
- Potential for Misuse of FIR: The court emphasized that FIRs should not be used as a tool for vengeance or to settle personal disputes.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed FIR No. 590 of 2019 and all subsequent proceedings.
Development of Law
Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that an FIR and subsequent charge sheet can be quashed if there is a significant delay in filing the FIR, lack of specific details about the incident, and no corroborating evidence from affected parties, especially when the FIR appears to be a tool for vengeance.
This judgment reinforces the principle that the criminal justice system should not be used to settle personal disputes and that FIRs must be based on credible and specific allegations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur, quashing the FIR and subsequent charge sheet. The court emphasized the significant delay in filing the FIR, the lack of specific details about the incident, and the absence of corroborating evidence. The judgment underscores the importance of timely and specific reporting of offenses and cautions against the misuse of the legal process for personal vendettas.