SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIM versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 58 · Decided: 08-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 58 : 2023 INSC 687
58
CASE DETAILS
SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIM
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2344 of 2023)
AUGUST 08, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration : In a case where in the further statement of the 
fi rst informant’s name of the appellant surfaced for the fi rst time, the appellant not 
named in the FIR as one of the accused persons and no allegation worth the name 
in the entire FIR against him, whether the High Court was justifi ed in declining 
to quash the FIR.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR, when in 
the further statement of the fi rst informant’s name of the appellant surfaced 
for the fi rst time – High Court declining to quash the FIR – Correctness:
Held : Appellant not named in the FIR as one of the accused persons – No 
allegation worth the name in the entire FIR against him – First informant in her 
further statement made out altogether a diff erent story than what she narrated in 
the FIR – No off ence u/s. 195A and s. 386 made out – Entire case put up by the 
fi rst informant appears to be concocted and fabricated – Multiple FIRs registered 
over a period of time which attract wreaking vengeance out of private or personal 
grudge – In view thereof, the FIR is quashed and the order passed by the High 
Court is set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 147, 148, 149, 195A, 386, 504 and 
506 – Protection of Children from Sexual Off ences Act, 2012 – ss. 7, 8. [Paras 
10, 14, 16 and 24-27]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 195A – Invocation of, by the investigating agency 
– Correctness:
Held : To give threat to a person to withdraw a complaint or FIR or settle 
the dispute would not attract s. 195A – None of the ingredients to constitute 
59
SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIM v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
the off ence punishable u/s. 195A disclosed, on plain reading of the FIR and the 
further statement of the fi rst informant including the statement of the so-called 
eye witness – Nothing to indicate that the accused persons threatened the fi rst 
informant with intent that the fi rst informant gives false evidence before the Court 
of law. [Paras 15 and 16]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 386 – Extortion by putting a person in fear 
of death or grievous hurt – Invocation of – Necessary ingredients:
Held : Victim must be induced to deliver to any person any property 
or valuable security, etc – Delivery of the property must be with consent 
which has been obtained by putting the person in fear of any injury – Forcibly 
taking any property will not come under this defi nition – It has to be shown 
that the person was induced to part with the property by putting him in fear 
of injury – On facts, nothing to indicate that there was actual delivery of 
possession of property (money) by the person put in fear – In the absence 
of anything to even remotely suggest that the fi rst informant parted with a 
particular amount after being put to fear of any injury, no off ence u/s. 386 
can be said to have been made out. [Paras 22 and 24]
FIR – Quashing of – Invocation of inherent powers u/s. 482 CrPC 
or extraordinary jurisdiction u/Art. 226 of the Constitution – Duty of 
the court:
Held : Whenever an accused seeks quashing of the FIR or the 
criminal proceedings essentially on the ground that such proceedings are 
manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for 
wreaking vengeance, in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look 
into the FIR with care and a little more closely – It would not be just enough 
for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone 
for the purpose of the alleged off ence are disclosed or not – In frivolous 
or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other 
attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above 
the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read 
in between the lines – Court is empowered to take into account the overall 
circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the 
materials collected in the course of investigation. [Para 26]
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Ramyad Singh v. Emperor Criminal Revision No. 125 of 1931 (Pat) 
– referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No.2344 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2022 of the High Court

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