LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a First Information Report (FIR) can be quashed based on the delay in registering a counter-FIR and without considering the injury report of the complainant.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law – Assault and Police Misconduct
Case Name: Ram Kishan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: April 09, 2021
Date of the Judgment: April 09, 2021
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3705 of 2015)
Judges: S.A. Bobde (Chief Justice of India), L. Nageswara Rao (Justice), Vineet Saran (Justice). This was a unanimous decision.
Can a High Court quash a First Information Report (FIR) merely because a counter-FIR was not immediately registered, especially when the initial FIR was under investigation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving allegations of assault against a police constable by another police inspector. The court examined whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR based on the sequence of events and without considering all the evidence. The bench comprised Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice L. Nageswara Rao, and Justice Vineet Saran, who delivered a unanimous judgment.
Case Background
On the evening of July 21, 2006, at approximately 9:15 PM, Ram Kishan, a police constable, along with a Sub-Inspector and another constable, were conducting vehicle checks. They stopped a motorcycle rider, Deepak Gupta, who, instead of providing vehicle papers, pretended to take a phone call and fled. He returned about 20 minutes later with two women in a Maruti car, one of whom was Ms. Ratna Gupta, an Inspector in the Rajasthan Police, and the other was Ms. Usha Gupta. Ms. Ratna Gupta allegedly abused Ram Kishan with caste-related slurs, physically assaulted him, and then left the scene. Following this incident, Ram Kishan lodged FIR No. 217 of 2006 at 9:45 PM on the same day.
The next day, on July 22, 2006, Deepak Gupta filed a counter-FIR (No. 218 of 2006) alleging that Ram Kishan had demanded a bribe and assaulted him when it was not paid. He also accused Ram Kishan of indecent behavior and tearing the clothes of Ms. Usha Gupta.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 21, 2006, 9:15 PM | Police constable Ram Kishan stops Deepak Gupta’s motorcycle for vehicle check. |
| July 21, 2006, approx. 9:35 PM | Deepak Gupta returns with Ms. Ratna Gupta and Ms. Usha Gupta. Ms. Ratna Gupta allegedly assaults Ram Kishan. |
| July 21, 2006, 9:45 PM | Ram Kishan lodges FIR No. 217 of 2006 against Ms. Ratna Gupta. |
| July 22, 2006 | Deepak Gupta lodges counter-FIR No. 218 of 2006 against Ram Kishan. |
| December 30, 2006 | Police files a Final Report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code in relation to FIR No. 218 of 2006. |
| January 23, 2015 | Rajasthan High Court quashes FIR No. 217 of 2006. |
| April 09, 2021 | Supreme Court sets aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order and directs further investigation into FIR No. 217 of 2006. |
Course of Proceedings
The Rajasthan High Court quashed FIR No. 217 of 2006, filed by Ram Kishan, based on the argument that the counter-FIR (No. 218 of 2006) was not registered immediately, suggesting that FIR No. 217 was a counterblast. The High Court did not consider the Injury Report of Ram Kishan dated July 22, 2006, which was submitted by the Medical Officer of the Medical and Health Department of the Government of Rajasthan. Aggrieved by this order, Ram Kishan filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 332, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.—Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
- Section 353, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
The case also references Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice, and Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which deals with the police report after investigation.
Arguments
Appellant (Ram Kishan):
- The appellant argued that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR No. 217 of 2006, as it was registered a day before the counter-FIR No. 218 of 2006.
- The appellant contended that the High Court did not consider the Injury Report dated 22.07.2006, which was submitted by the Medical Officer of the Medical and Health Department of the Government of Rajasthan.
- The appellant submitted that the High Court should not have substituted its own opinion on the matter while the investigation was ongoing.
Respondents (Ms. Usha Gupta and Ms. Ratna Gupta):
- The respondents argued that the FIR No. 217 of 2006 was a counterblast to the incident alleged by Deepak Gupta and that the police did not register the counter-FIR immediately.
Amicus Curiae:
- The Amicus Curiae supported the appellant’s submissions, stating that the High Court should not have quashed the FIR No. 217 of 2006 based on the delay in registering the counter-FIR.
Submissions of Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission (Appellant) | Sub-Submission (Respondents) |
|---|---|---|
| Quashing of FIR No. 217 of 2006 | ✓ FIR No. 217 was registered before FIR No. 218. ✓ High Court did not consider the injury report of the appellant. ✓ High Court should not have substituted its opinion. |
✓ FIR No. 217 was a counterblast to the incident alleged by Deepak Gupta. ✓ Police did not register the counter-FIR immediately. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the core question of whether the High Court was justified in quashing FIR No. 217 of 2006.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in quashing FIR No. 217 of 2006 | The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order. | The High Court erred in quashing the FIR based on the delay in registering the counter-FIR and without considering the injury report of the appellant. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or books in this judgment. However, it considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 332, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Relating to voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from duty.
- Section 353, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Relating to assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from duty.
- Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Inherent powers of the High Court.
- Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Police report after investigation.
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | How it was Considered | Court |
|---|---|---|
| Section 332, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | The Court examined whether the alleged actions of the respondent fell under the ambit of the provision. | Supreme Court of India |
| Section 353, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | The Court examined whether the alleged actions of the respondent fell under the ambit of the provision. | Supreme Court of India |
| Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 | The Court examined whether the High Court had rightly exercised its inherent powers to quash the FIR. | Supreme Court of India |
| Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 | The Court directed the police to submit a report under this section after a proper investigation. | Supreme Court of India |
Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Rajasthan High Court that had quashed FIR No. 217 of 2006. The Court held that the High Court had erred in quashing the FIR based on the grounds that the counter-FIR was not registered immediately and without considering the injury report of the appellant. The Supreme Court directed the police to conduct a complete and proper investigation into FIR No. 217 of 2006 and submit a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that FIR No. 217 was registered before FIR No. 218. | Accepted. The Court noted that FIR No. 217 was indeed registered a day earlier than FIR No. 218. |
| Appellant’s submission that the High Court did not consider the injury report. | Accepted. The Court noted that the High Court had not considered the injury report of the appellant. |
| Appellant’s submission that the High Court should not have substituted its opinion. | Accepted. The Court held that the High Court should not have substituted its own opinion while the matter was under investigation. |
| Respondents’ submission that FIR No. 217 was a counterblast. | Rejected. The Court held that this was not a valid ground to quash the FIR, especially when it was registered a day earlier. |
| Respondents’ submission that the police did not register the counter-FIR immediately. | Rejected. The Court held that the delay in registering the counter-FIR was not a valid ground to quash the initial FIR. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court considered the following:
- Section 332, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 353, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court considered these sections to determine if the alleged actions of the respondent fell under the ambit of these provisions.
- Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: The court held that the High Court had not correctly exercised its powers under this section to quash the FIR.
- Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: The court directed the police to submit a report under this section after a proper investigation.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:
- The fact that FIR No. 217 of 2006 was registered a day before the counter-FIR No. 218 of 2006.
- The High Court’s failure to consider the injury report of the appellant, Ram Kishan.
- The principle that the High Court should not substitute its own opinion for that of the investigating agency when an investigation is ongoing.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Irregularity by High Court | 40% |
| Importance of Injury Report | 30% |
| Principle of Ongoing Investigation | 30% |
Ratio: Fact vs Law
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by both factual and legal considerations.
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court overturned the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, stating that the High Court had erred in quashing FIR No. 217 of 2006. The Court emphasized that the FIR was registered before the counter-FIR, and the High Court did not consider the injury report of the appellant. The Court also stated that the High Court should not have substituted its own opinion while the matter was under investigation. The Supreme Court directed the police to conduct a complete and proper investigation into FIR No. 217 of 2006 and submit a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
The Supreme Court observed, “In our considered opinion, quashing the FIR No.217 of 2006, solely on this ground is wholly unreasonable and cannot be justified in law.” The Court further noted, “It is also noteworthy, that while deciding the matter, the High Court has not considered the Injury Report of the appellantRam Kishan dated 22.07.2006… nor have the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant (though recorded) been considered in the Order quashing the FIR no. 217 of 2006.” The Court concluded, “Accordingly, we set aside the Order dated 23.01.2015 passed by the Rajasthan High Court… and direct that the police shall submit its report under section 173 Cr.P.C. after carrying out a complete and proper investigation relating to FIR No.217 of 2006.”
This was a unanimous decision by the bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice L. Nageswara Rao, and Justice Vineet Saran.
Key Takeaways
- A High Court should not quash an FIR merely because a counter-FIR was not immediately registered.
- The High Court must consider all relevant evidence, including injury reports, before quashing an FIR.
- The High Court should not substitute its own opinion for that of the investigating agency when an investigation is ongoing.
- The police are directed to conduct a thorough investigation in such cases.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the police to conduct a complete and proper investigation relating to FIR No. 217 of 2006 and submit a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The court also directed that the investigation be concluded as expeditiously as possible, given that the matter had been pending for about a decade and a half.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court should not quash an FIR merely on the ground of a delay in registering a counter-FIR, especially when the initial FIR was registered earlier and the investigation is ongoing. This judgment reinforces the principle that all relevant evidence, including injury reports, must be considered, and the High Court should not substitute its opinion for that of the investigating agency.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Kishan vs. State of Rajasthan sets aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order, emphasizing the importance of thorough investigation and proper consideration of evidence in criminal cases. The judgment clarifies that a delay in registering a counter-FIR does not automatically invalidate an earlier FIR, and that High Courts should not interfere with ongoing investigations without compelling reasons. The police are now directed to conduct a proper investigation into the matter.