NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used as an alternative to statutory remedies provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS Sanhita) for safeguarding personal liberty.
Justice Sanjeev Narula made this observation while rejecting a plea filed by an accused in an extortion case who sought protection from arrest by the Delhi Police.
According to the FIR, the petitioner, along with a co-accused, allegedly confronted the complainant in a public place, grabbed him by the collar, and threatened him for money.
When the complainant refused to comply, the petitioner purportedly brandished a buttoned knife, pressing it against the complainant’s neck. Fearing for his life, the complainant handed over Rs 8,000.
Subsequently, as the petitioner remained absconding, the trial court declared him a “Proclaimed Offender”.
The accused contended he was falsely implicated and the FIR was result of a malicious conspiracy between the complainant and the Investigating Officer. He argued the allegations were baseless and lacked independent corroboration.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the petitioner insisted that the FIR should be quashed since the allegations were so inherently improbable that no reasonable person could believe there was sufficient material to prosecute him. The court, however, dismissed the petition, holding that the allegations in the FIR prima facie indicated commission of cognisable offences.
“Quashing is warranted only in cases where the allegations, even if accepted as true, do not disclose a cognisable offence, where prosecution is manifestly tainted with mala fides, or the allegations are so absurd that no prudent person can believe them,” the court noted.
Further, it rejected arguments regarding delayed FIR and absence of corroborative evidence, saying these factors do not discredit the allegations.