CASE BRIEF: SALIB V. STATE OF U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 947

CASE NAME	Salib v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 947
CITATION	Criminal Appeal No. 2344 of 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 3152 of 2023)
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
PETITIONER	Salib alias Shalu alias Salim
RESPONDENT	State of U.P. and Others
DECIDED ON	Decided on 8th August, 2023

INTRODUCTION

In Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, a challenge to a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with criminal intimidation, was determined on August 8, 2023. Husna, the complainant, submitted a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that the appellant and others threatened her to drop a previous gang rape and assault case that was recorded under Sections 376D, 323, 120B, and 452 of the IPC. The appellant requested that this FIR be quashed on the grounds that it contained baseless and frivolous accusations. The Allahabad High Court, however, dismissed the appellant’s request to have the FIR quashed because it revealed a crime that might be prosecuted. Subsequently, the appellant appealed the High Court’s ruling to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court was asked to evaluate the guidelines established by seminal rulings such as State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra in order to determine whether the FIR might be dismissed in light of the charges made. These rulings set guidelines for the quashing of FIRs, especially when it comes to disclosures of ostensibly cognizable offenses. Important issues regarding criminal intimidation, procedural protections, and the proper use of Section 506 IPC in situations when the accused alleges false implications are explored in this case. In order to resolve these issues and ensure that complainants in delicate cases are protected as well as that the criminal justice system is not abused, the Supreme Court’s ruling is crucial.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In relation to First Information Report (FIR) No. 175 of 2022, dated 11.08.2022, filed with the Mirzapur Police Station, District Saharanpur, State of Uttar Pradesh, this appeal is being made on behalf of an accused person charged with an offense punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (abbreviated “IPC”). It is directed against the order issued by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated 17.10.2022. According to the FIR dated 11.08.2022 filed by respondent No. 4 herein, Iqbal @ Bala and his associates are the subject of an application in Mahila Thana filed by the applicant Husna, wife of Irafan, resident of the village Mirzapur Paul police station Mirzapur Paul, District Saharanpur, against Case Crime No. 122/22 u/s 376D, 323, 120B, 452 IPC, which is currently under investigation. The complainant is being threatened by Khursheed, son of Asagar, Farooq, son of Mustak, and Maharaj, wife of Faroq, who reside in Shahpur Gadda, Police Station Mirzapur Paul, District Saharanpur. Both over the phone and in person, they threatened to harm the complainant and his family if this case was not resolved. Suleman Kabadi also displayed a pistol and claimed that we were Iqbal @ Balla’s friends. Should a decision not be made, one should be prepared to face the repercussions.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the FIR should be quashed so far as the appellant herein is concerned?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

Since the petitioner is not named in the current FIR, it is respectfully submitted that during the course of the investigation, he was named for the first time in the statement provided by the alleged eye-witness Salman, who was recorded under Section 161 CRPC on August 12, 2022. Based on this improved version of the alleged incident, the offense under Sections 147, 148, 149, 195-A, 386, 504, and 506 IPC was added to FIR No. 175/2022. It is important to note that the complainant did not disclose the presence of the purported eyewitness, Salman, at the scene or any other point in the FIR.
Furthermore, aside from omnibus allegations, there is no specific allegation made against the accused individuals in the First Information Report. The petitioner was not present at the incident site, which is Village Mirzapur, District Saharanpur, and is actually a permanent resident of Kunjagrant, Vikasnagar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. These allegations are not only ludicrous, but they are also incredibly improbable, given that the FIR does not specify the date or time of the incident.
It is claimed that, without identifying the cases that are purportedly filed against the Petitioner, the Respondents have falsely claimed that the Petitioner is a party to several criminal cases. The petitioner, who is not a member of any gang, is being wrongfully accused in this case just because he is Haji Iqbal alias Bala’s son-in-law and the pairokar of some of his family members who have cases before the Honorable High Court and the Learned Trial Court.
In addition to the current FIR No. 175 of 2022, the petitioner has no prior criminal history and no other criminal matters are pending against him. The First Information Report (FIR) may be dismissed since the charges contained within do not, at first glance, establish any offense or establish a case against the Petitioner under Sections 147, 148, 149, 195-A, 386, 504, and 506 of the IPC. Importantly, a court of law has the authority to grant a motion to quail an FIR even after the charge sheet has been submitted.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

The petitioner is a family member of the gang, and the other gang members are criminals who engage in antisocial behavior. The petitioner also performs a variety of illicit tasks.
The petitioner’s name was originally omitted from the FIR; however, the investigating agency inserted the petitioner’s name and sections 147, 148, 149, 195A, 386, and 504,506 IPC over the course of the investigation.
Following the filing of the First Information Report, the Investigation Officer carried out the investigation. During the investigation, the Petitioner received several notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C., but he ignored them, failed to respond to them, and refused to assist the investigation in finding the actual truth.

JUDGMENT

The Court determined that, as far as the appellant is concerned, the FIR No. 175 of 2022, dated 11.08.2022, ought to be invalidated. It is clearly clear that the State regards the appellant’s father-in-law, Iqbal @ Bala, as a very hardened criminal and that the current appellant, who has been implicated in the first informant’s subsequent statement, is likewise a criminal. It is important to highlight that the first informant never claimed that she gave the accused people Rs. 10 Lakh out of fear. Stated differently, there is no proof that the one who instilled terror actually delivered the property (money). There is no evidence to support the allegation that the first informant gave up a certain amount because they were afraid they would be hurt, which means that Section 386 of the IPC has not been committed.

CONCLUSION

Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with criminal intimidation. The Supreme Court addressed important legal concerns surrounding this section in the case of Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh. In order to get Husna to drop an earlier FIR alleging more serious crimes, including gang rape, under Section 376D of the IPC, the appellant was accused of intimidating her. The appellant requested the dismissal of this FIR, arguing that it was unfounded and submitted with improper intent.

The Supreme Court consulted earlier rulings in its analysis of the matter, including the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra. Guidelines for the quashing of FIRs have been established by these cases, particularly in situations where there has been a prima facie disclosure of a cognizable offense. The Court emphasized that FIRs should only be dismissed in extraordinary circumstances, such as where the complaint is clearly baseless, malicious, or fails to reveal any wrongdoing. In this instance, the Court concluded that the complainant’s FIR did, in fact, disclose a Section 506 IPC offense that may be prosecuted. Serious and tantamount to criminal intimidation, the plaintiff was threatened to have to withdraw the earlier case.

The Court further underlined how critical it is to safeguard victims of sexual assault and related offenses, pointing out that intimidation in these situations not only impedes the administration of justice but also discourages additional victims from coming forward. The Court upheld the need for additional research and legal examination, declining to dismiss the FIR. In summary, the Supreme Court maintained the belief that threats and intimidation had to be taken seriously and should be met with firmness, especially when they relate to heinous crimes like gang rape. The ruling upheld the rule that criminal investigations shouldn’t be abruptly stopped unless there is clear evidence of fraud or malice. The Court preserved the rights of the complainant and the integrity of the legal system by denying the appeal to quash the FIR. This insured that the inquiry would move on and the law would apply as it was intended.