Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In an application filed by members of a Residents’ Welfare Association (“RWA”) seeking quashing of a criminal case filed against them for levying penalty on incorrect parking, the Single Bench of Pankaj Bhatia, J., allowed the petition, holding that the entire FIR, charge sheet and the summoning order were nothing but an abuse of process of law at the instance of a disgruntled resident against the duly elected members of the RWA. The Court also held that the investigation was clearly half-baked and appeared to be under the influence of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (“RSS”) office, said to be held by the informant.
Background
The accused persons were the residents of a registered society named Celebrity Greens (“the Society”). Accused 1 was the secretary, and Accused 2 and 3 were the president and caretaker of the Society, respectively. In a board meeting, the issue of haphazard parking was considered, and guidelines were issued wherein the residents were allotted one slot of their choice for parking their vehicles. If any resident did not follow the guidelines, at the first instance they would be warned, but upon a repeat offence their vehicle would be locked, and a penalty would be levied.
The informant was allegedly wrongly parking his vehicle, and upon being opposed, he filed the FIR against the accused persons under Sections 308(2), 351(2), 352 of the Nyaya Sanhita (“BNS”). He stated that he was an engineer, an entrepreneur, a social worker, and a trustee of Bhavrao Devras Trust of RSS. He alleged that the accused persons were engaged in extracting money from the residents by forming a gang and harassing them upon non-payment. Similarly, they threatened him regarding the penalty of Rs. 500. He also contended that the accused persons did not have any sanction for making such recoveries, and they did not issue any receipts.
The accused persons contended that the informant was habitually parking his vehicle incorrectly despite repeated warnings.
After investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 308(2), 351(3), 352 of the BNS, and the impugned summoning order was passed by the Trial Court stating that there was sufficient material to proceed. Hence, the present application was filed by the accused persons.
Analysis
Upon perusal of the FIR, the statements, and the charge sheet, which includes only the statements of the parties, the Court noted that there was no allegation of intentionally putting any person in fear of any injury, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court stated that in the present case, the allegations were that the RWA was unauthorizedly charging Rs. 500 and locking for incorrect parking of vehicles. The Court further stated that there was no material suggesting that the applicants intentionally put the informant or any other residents in fear of any injury or made any effort to dishonestly induce any resident or the informant to deliver to any person any property or any security. No amount was extracted from the informant.
The Court added that the ingredients of Section 352 of the BNS were not made out even if all the material was treated as gospel truth, as there was no allegation of any intentional insult provoking any person, which was likely to cause him to break the public peace or commit any other offence.
Regarding Section 351 of the BNS, the Court stated that the allegation of criminal intimidation was also not discernible from the material filed with the charge sheet.
Thus, the Court held that from the plain reading of the materials collected, even if admitted to be the gospel truth, did not constitute any offence whatsoever under the charged Sections.
Furthermore, the Court stated that it could not ignore the manner in which the investigation was carried out in the present case. When the informant alleged that the accused persons were extorting money from the residents and the accused persons denied the same, it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to take the statement of the residents to verify the resolution passed by the RWA, including their bye-laws, to assess whether the allegations amounted to an offence. Placing reliance on Sanjeev v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 710, the Court stated that none of the parameters laid down for fair investigation were followed in the present case.
The Court added that there was no material proving that any amount was actually taken from the informant, which is a sine qua non for extortion. As per the records, there was no material, in the form of a statement of any residents, that any threat was issued at any point in time or any extortion was done.
“The charge sheet was filed in a hurried manner only after recording the statement of the informant as well as the applicants; even the material given by the informant was not cross-checked.”
The Court held that the investigation was clearly half-baked and appeared to be under the influence of the office said to be held by the informant. Accordingly, the Court directed that a copy of this order shall be placed in the Annual Confidential Report of the Investigating Officer, and a copy shall be sent to the Director General of Police to decide whether the role of investigation can be entrusted to the Investigating Officer herein.
Thus, the Court held that the entire FIR, charge sheet, and the summoning order were nothing but an abuse of process of law at the instance of a disgruntled resident against the duly elected members of the RWA. The accused persons were the duly elected members of the RWA and had taken a decision based upon the resolution passed in the general body; the decision could in no way be called ‘extortion’.
The Court remarked that the informant had clearly not gained the responsibilities along with the great powers that he claimed to have. Accordingly, the Court stated that it would be open to RSS to see whether the browbeating of the common public by their members was sanctioned in favour of the informant owing to his office.
“Prima facie, a highly disciplined and respected cultural organization like the RSS has been maligned and the membership has been misused in the present case by the informant; however, this Court is not well equipped to go any further with regard to his acts in misusing the name of a respected cultural organization in the manner in which it has been done.”
Thus, the application was allowed.
[Kamalesh Agnihotri v. State of U.P., Application u/S 528 BNSS No. 1980 of 2025, decided on 09-02-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioners: Shailendra Kumar Singh, Mohit Mishra, Suneel Kumar
For the respondent: Government Advocate V.K. Singh, AGA Bhanu Pratap Singh, Sriniwas Bajpai, Viny Prakash Tiwari, Shanker Lal Pandey