MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 313 · Decided: 08-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CASE DETAILS
MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2340 of 2023)
AUGUST 08, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: In the instant case wherein FIR was 
registered u/ss. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC against the appellants, the 
questions which arose for consideration are whether the said case falls 
within the parameters laid down for quashing the FIR; whether the 
plain reading of the FIR discloses commission of the off ence of dacoity 
punishable u/s. 395 IPC; whether any case of criminal intimidation 
punishable u/ss. 504 and 506(2) IPC is made out; and whether the 
allegations levelled in the FIR inspire any confi dence considering the 
delay of one year in lodging the FIR. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – FIR – Quashing 
of – FIR alleging that to settle a land dispute the informant and his 
brother visited the house of the appellant on their own free will wherein 
the appellant and the other co-accused assaulted the informant and 
his brother, forcibly took Rs. 2 lakh from the informants’ pocket 
and thereafter took their signatures forcibly on a blank paper – FIR 
registered u/ss. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC – High Court declining to 
quash the FIR – Correctness:
Held: Entire case put up by the informant on the face of it appears to 
be concocted and fabricated – Multiple FIRs have been registered against the 
appellant and the other accused over a period of time which attract wreaking 
vengeance out of private or personal grudge – Continuation of the criminal 
case arising from the FIR would be nothing but abuse of the process of the 
law – Thus, the impugned order passed by the High Court set aside and the 
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 313 : 2023 INSC 683
313
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
criminal proceedings arising from the FIR quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 
395, 504, 506 and 323. [Paras 29, 30, 35 and 36]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 395 – Punishment for Dacoity – FIR alleging 
that to settle a land dispute the informant and his brother visited 
the house of the appellant wherein the appellant and the co-accused 
assaulted the informant and his brother and forcibly took R. 2 lakh from 
the informants’ pocket – Registration of FIR for the off ence punishable 
u/s. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC – Correctness: 
Held: s. 395 is not applicable to the instant case – Prosecution 
blindfoldedly and without understanding the true purport of the off ence 
of “dacoity” registered the FIR for the off ence punishable u/s. 395 – None 
of the ingredients to constitute the off ence of dacoity disclosed – Entire 
case put up by the fi rst informant appears to be fabricated – At the time of 
alleged incident, taking away of Rs. 2 Lakh from the pocket of the informant 
forcibly by the accused persons would not fall within the ambit of the words 
“for that end” occurring in s. 390 – Even according to the informant, with 
a view to settle the land dispute, the informant and his brother visited the 
house of the appellant on their own free will and volition – It is only after 
reaching the house of the appellant that the entire incident is alleged to have 
occurred. [Paras 17 and 18]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 390 – Robbery – Theft when amounts to 
robbery:
Held: Three ingredients mentioned in s.390 must always be satisfi ed 
before theft can amount to robbery – Firstly, the off ender must have 
voluntarily caused or attempted to cause to any person death or hurt or 
wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant 
wrongful restraint – Secondly this must be in order to the committing of the 
theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry 
away property obtained by the theft – Thirdly the off ender must voluntarily 
cause or attempt to cause to any person hurt etc., for that end, that is, in 
order to the committing of the theft or for the purpose of committing theft 
or for carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the 
theft. [Paras 14 and 15] 
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 504 – Intentional insult with intent to provoke 
breach of peace – Necessary ingredient u/s. 504:
315
Held: Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount 
to an intentional insult within the meaning of s. 504 if it does not have the 
necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit 
a breach of the peace of an off ence and the other element of the accused 
intending to provoke the pers

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.