‘FIR After 39 Days Without Any Date Or Time Of Incident; Seems To Be A Tool To Wreak Vengeance’: SC Quashes Criminal Case For Trespass and Demolition

The Court was hearing a special leave against the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court which refused to quash the FIR.

The bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “The FIR which was lodged after 39 days of the incident, does not indicate the date or time when the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant and caused damage to his property and committed the other offences for which the FIR came to be registered. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned FIR seems to be nothing but a tool to wreak vengeance against the appellant herein.”

Brief Facts-

In the present case, complainant Barkat Ali who allegedly purchased land from Geeta Rai had erected a boundary wall, storing construction materials etc. He registered an FIR under Sections 447, 427, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the petitioners Saurabh Pratap Singh Thakur and Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur accusing them of trespass, demolishing houses, and stealing construction material.

The Court perused the impugned FIR and noted that the complainant was not even sure of the date on which the alleged offences were committed.

The Court perused the site plan made by the investigating officer during the investigation and noted that no damage was caused to the boundary wall. The Court further stated that there was some damage to the under-construction house of Sushma Kashyap. However, the Court noted that no complaint was registered by Sushma Kashyap.

The Court stated that the allegation levelled by the complainant that the accused demolished the boundary wall constructed on the land in his possession was not substantiated during the spot inspection.

Finally, the Court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings.

Cause Title: Shivendra Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Click here to read/download Judgment