Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Quashing of FIR Amidst Cross Allegations of Assault and Sexual Harassment, Holds “Existence of a Cross FIR is Not a Sole Ground for Quashing”

---

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which sought to quash FIR No. 494/2021. The petitioner argued that the FIR was a counterblast to her complaint and was filed with a mala fide intent to harass her. The High Court, however, ruled that:

• Cross FIRs do not automatically nullify each other—each case must be independently assessed.
• Allegations in the FIR needed to be tested at trial, and it was not appropriate to quash the FIR at this stage.
• The petitioner’s arguments regarding police bias and delay in filing the FIR did not justify quashing the case since such matters could only be examined during trial.

Thus, the court refused to interfere with the ongoing criminal proceedings, stating that the petitioner’s grounds for quashing were weak and could be dealt with during trial.

---

Facts of the Case

The case revolves around a family dispute that escalated into an alleged physical altercation. The petitioner visited the residence of her paternal aunt (Bua) on August 11, 2021, in Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, to discuss an ongoing property dispute within the family. However, the situation turned violent, leading to cross-allegations between both sides.

Petitioner’s Allegations

According to the petitioner, upon reaching the residence:

1. She was physically assaulted by the respondent (her aunt) and other family members, who:
   • Snatched her phone, slapped her, and pulled her hair.
   • Pushed her against the wall and banged her forehead.
   • Pinned her down on the bed for 15-20 minutes while the household maid twisted her fingers.
   • Scratched her neck and physically restrained her.
2. She was sexually assaulted when her cousin (the respondent’s son):
   • Pulled her by the breast and touched her private parts.
   • Made unwanted sexual advances towards her.
3. She was forcibly thrown out of the house by the respondent, her cousin, and the household maid. They:
   • Lifted her and physically dragged her out of the flat.
   • Kept her belongings inside and only returned her phone by throwing it in the lobby.

Police Complaint and Cross FIR

• The petitioner called the police immediately and was taken to a hospital for medical treatment on August 11, 2021.
• However, she alleged that her FIR was not registered on the same day.
• When she followed up with the police on August 12, 2021, she was allegedly:
  • Forced to write a fresh complaint stating that she had gone home after her medical treatment.
  • Pressured to compromise with the accused.
• Eventually, her FIR (No. 493/2021) was registered on August 18, 2021.

Meanwhile, on the same date (August 18, 2021), a counter FIR (No. 494/2021) was filed against her by the respondent. The counter FIR alleged that:

• The petitioner had trespassed into the respondent’s house.
• She had physically assaulted the respondent and wrongfully restrained her.

The petitioner claimed that this counter FIR was fabricated, filed in collusion with the police to harass her, and should be quashed.

---

Issues Before the Court

The court had to decide the following legal questions:

1. Can an FIR be quashed solely because a cross FIR exists?
2. Do the allegations in FIR No. 494/2021 appear to be mala fide and an abuse of the legal process?
3. Should police bias or delay in filing an FIR be considered grounds for quashing it?
4. Does the petitioner’s claim that she was physically weaker than the accused make the allegations in FIR No. 494/2021 inherently improbable?

---

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel made the following arguments in favor of quashing FIR No. 494/2021:

1. Cross FIR is a Counterblast

• The counter FIR was registered purely as retaliation after she filed her complaint.
• The timing of FIR No. 494/2021 (registered on the same date as FIR No. 493/2021) showed that it was a deliberate attempt to intimidate her.

2. Allegations Are Not Believable

• The petitioner, a frail 50-year-old woman, was alone against multiple accused individuals.
• The respondent’s house was full of people at the time of the incident, making it highly improbable that she physically assaulted the respondent.
• The respondent’s claims of being assaulted and having her modesty outraged by a lone woman were unrealistic.

3. Police Bias and Deliberate Delays

• The petitioner’s FIR was deliberately delayed, and police pressured her to compromise.
• Despite the medical report (MLC) confirming her injuries, police:
  • Did not cite the doctor as a witness.
  • Did not include her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. in the charge sheet.
  • Exempted key accused persons from the charge sheet.

4. The FIR Does Not Disclose Any Offence

• The FIR fails to make out a case under Sections 354(B), 451, and 509 of IPC, as the allegations are vague and exaggerated.
• The charges were levied only to pressure the petitioner into withdrawing her complaint.

5. Legal Precedents

The petitioner relied on:

• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 – Supreme Court held that FIRs can be quashed if they are manifestly false or made with mala fide intent.
• Musstt Rehana Begum v. State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 118/2022 – Reaffirmed the Bhajan Lal guidelines.

---

Respondent’s Arguments

The State and the respondent opposed the petition, contending that:

• There were specific allegations of assault and molestation, requiring trial proceedings.
• Cross FIRs do not automatically nullify each other—both should be independently investigated.
• Police bias is not a ground for quashing an FIR.
• The petitioner’s claims of improbability were matters of evidence, not legal grounds for quashing.

---

Court’s Reasoning

The court rejected the petitioner’s plea, ruling that:

1. Cross FIRs Do Not Cancel Each Other Out
   • Courts cannot quash an FIR solely because a counter FIR exists.
   • Both versions must be tested at trial.
2. Allegations in the FIR Cannot Be Disregarded
   • The respondent made specific allegations of assault, wrongful restraint, and outraging of modesty.
   • Whether the allegations were true or false could only be determined after trial.
3. Police Bias and Delays Are Trial Issues
   • The delay in registering FIRs and alleged collusion with police were not sufficient grounds to quash the FIR.
4. No Exceptional Case for Quashing Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
   • The Bhajan Lal case did not apply, as the FIR was not entirely frivolous or lacking in substance.

---

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that:

• The existence of a cross FIR does not justify quashing an FIR.
• The trial court must determine the credibility of allegations.
• The petitioner’s claims about improbability and police bias were issues for trial.

---

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling reaffirms the legal position that:

• Cross FIRs must be independently investigated.
• Claims of police bias or delay do not justify quashing.
• Disputed facts should be resolved during the trial, not at the FIR stage.

This judgment ensures that criminal law cannot be used as a weapon to coerce settlements while preserving the integrity of legal proceedings.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Refers Interpretation of Section 50 of Cr.P.C. to Larger Bench: “Lack of Clarity in Arrest Procedures and Non-Compliance with Mandatory Written Grounds of Arrest Violates Fundamental Rights Under Articles 21 & 22 of the Constitution”