Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Accused in Uttar Pradesh Criminal Case

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., where it quashed an FIR registered against the appellant. The case revolved around allegations of criminal intimidation and threats in a dispute related to another ongoing case. The Court ruled that the FIR was filed with mala fide intentions and lacked sufficient grounds to proceed with prosecution.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Salib @ Shalu @ Salim, was named in an FIR registered on August 11, 2022, at the Mirzapur Police Station, District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The complaint was filed by Husna, who alleged that she had been threatened by the accused and his associates due to her filing of an earlier FIR related to an alleged sexual offense.

Key details of the case:

Husna had previously lodged an FIR (Case No. 122/2022) under Sections 376D, 323, 120B, 354A, and 452 IPC, alleging sexual assault against multiple individuals, including the father-in-law of the appellant, Haji Iqbal @ Bala.
She later filed another FIR (Case No. 175/2022) under Section 506 IPC, alleging that she was threatened by associates of Haji Iqbal, including the appellant.
During the investigation, additional charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 195A, 386, 504 IPC were added based on witness statements.
The appellant challenged the FIR before the Allahabad High Court, seeking its quashing, but the High Court dismissed the petition.
Subsequently, the appellant moved the Supreme Court, arguing that the allegations were false, and he was being implicated solely due to his relationship with Haji Iqbal.

Key Legal Issues

Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed any prima facie offense against the appellant.
Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the FIR based on the appellant’s alleged association with the main accused.
Whether the invocation of Section 195A IPC (Threatening to Give False Evidence) was justified.

Petitioner’s (Salib @ Shalu @ Salim) Arguments

The appellant was not named in the original FIR, and his name surfaced only in later witness statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
The complainant did not specify any date or time for the alleged threats, making the allegations vague and baseless.
The appellant had no prior criminal record and was being implicated solely due to his familial relationship with Haji Iqbal.
The case was politically motivated, as multiple FIRs had been filed against Haji Iqbal and his family members to settle political scores.
The allegations under Section 195A IPC were not justified, as there was no evidence that the complainant was forced to give false testimony.

Respondent’s (State of Uttar Pradesh) Arguments

The FIR disclosed a cognizable offense, and the investigation was necessary to verify the allegations.
The appellant’s name was added based on the statement of an eyewitness, Salman, who claimed that the accused had threatened the complainant.
The appellant had absconded after the FIR was lodged, further justifying the need for investigation.
Multiple notices under Section 41A CrPC were issued to the appellant, but he failed to appear for questioning.
The case involved intimidation related to a sexual offense, and quashing the FIR at an early stage would hamper the investigation.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, ruling that the allegations lacked credibility and did not justify prosecution. The key observations were:

No Direct Allegations: The Court noted that the FIR did not contain any direct allegations against the appellant and that his name surfaced only in a later witness statement.
Unexplained Delay: The complainant filed the FIR months after the alleged threats, with no justification for the delay.
False Implication Due to Family Association: The Court observed that the appellant was being targeted solely due to his relationship with Haji Iqbal.
Misuse of Section 195A IPC: The Court clarified that mere threats to withdraw a case do not constitute an offense under Section 195A IPC, which applies only when threats are used to force a person to give false evidence.
Political Motive: The Court found that multiple FIRs had been registered against the appellant’s family members, suggesting a pattern of malicious prosecution.

Directions Issued

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR against the appellant.
The investigation and any criminal proceedings arising from the FIR were set aside.
The ruling applied only to the appellant and did not affect proceedings against the other accused.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for criminal law and fair investigation practices:

Protection Against False Prosecution: The judgment reinforces that FIRs filed with political motives or due to personal vendettas should not be allowed to stand.
Clarification on Section 195A IPC: The ruling establishes that mere threats to withdraw a case do not attract Section 195A IPC.
Judicial Oversight in Quashing FIRs: The judgment highlights the need for courts to scrutinize the motives behind FIRs and ensure that investigations are based on genuine allegations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ensures that individuals are not subjected to prosecution based on vague allegations or political motivations. By quashing the FIR, the Court reaffirmed the principle that criminal law should not be used as a tool for harassment. This ruling serves as a guiding precedent for future cases involving allegations of intimidation and malicious prosecution.

Petitioner Name: Salib @ Shalu @ Salim.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice J.B. Pardiwala.
Place Of Incident: Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 08-08-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: salib-@-shalu-@-sali-vs-state-of-uttar-prade-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-08-08-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by J.B. Pardiwala
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category