The Gujarat High Court refused to grant any interim relief to Senior Advocate IH Syed, who pleaded on Thursday to quash the criminal proceedings against him in an extortion case. Justice Samir J Dave turned down his prayer by stating, “No case is made out to quash the FIR /criminal proceedings at this stage while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)”.
Senior Advocate BB Naik, appearing for the petitioner submitted, “present criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with a malafide and is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner and with a view to malign his reputation and with a personal grudge since the petitioner appeared for the other side”.
Naik stated that the allegation in the FIR does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by the police officer under section 156(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Public Prosecutor Mitesh Amin, appearing for the state pleaded, “considering the nature and gravity of allegations, the seriousness of the alleged offence, the High Court may not use discretionary power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the present petitioner”.
Amin further informed the court that the investigation was not complete and the petitioner was not participating in the investigation.
Justice Dave placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure v State of Maharashtra and State of Haryana V. Bhanaj Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and others wherein it was held that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The top court had further stated that the same should be exercised in rarest of the rare cases and it was not justified for the Court in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations.
The High Court observed that it was too early to opine on the petitioner’s innocence since the investigation was not complete.
“Merely because the petitioner is an advocate is no ground to permit the investigating agency into the allegations made against him and to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold”, the Court stated.
Syed is charged with the offences of extortion, criminal conspiracy, unlawful assembly, rioting, voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult, criminal intimidation and wrongful confinement.
As per the First Information Report (FIR), an earlier FIR registered against the complainant was quashed by the High Court after a settlement between the parties. However, a meeting was held between the accused in this case wherein the complainant was forced to sign certain documents against his will, it was alleged.
