1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER
PETITION NO.2398/2014 Sugan Singh & ORS.versus State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Date of order : 21.11.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Mr.G.R.Punia, Sr.Advocate assisted by Mr.Yashpal Khileree, for the petitioneRs.Mr.B.S.Rathore for the respondent No.2.
Mr.Rajesh Bhati, Public Prosecutor.
BY THE COURT:- This criminal misc.
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing FIR No.5/2014, Police Station Gachhipura, District Nagaur.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint at Police Station, Gachhipura, District Nagaur on 5.1.2014 while alleging that on 4.1.2014 at about 3:00 PM when she, along with her daughter, was sitting in a room, then suddenly, the accused- petitioners entered into her room and assaulted her and her daughter.
It is alleged that the petitioner No.2 inflicted a lathi blow on her hand and petitioners No.1 and 3, after beating respondent No.2 and her daughter, threw away 2 household items and attempted to burn her with gas pipe.
After intervention of Deep Singh, Maal Singh and Umaid Singh, she was rescued, otherwise the petitioners would have killed them.
On receiving this report, the police registered the FIR No.5/2014 on 5.1.2014 at Police Station, Gachhipura, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 354, 498A and 34 I.P.C.and started investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned FIR on the ground that earlier the respondent No.2 had also filed a complaint regarding cruelty and misappropriation of dowry items against the petitioneRs.however, on the basis of the complaint, the charge was filed against the petitioner No.3 only and the petitioners No.1 and 2 were not tried.
It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2 is going on and in respect of that dispute, a divorce petition preferred by the respondent No.3 is pending in the court and some proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are also pending at Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 3 looking to the history of litigation going on between the parties, it is apparent that the respondent No.2 has lodged a false FIR against the petitioneRs.It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that, in fact, the complainant is not residing at Village Nawa and at present he is serving as teacher in Udaipurwati, Jhunjhunu and, therefore, no such incident took place as alleged in the impugned FIR.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the petitioner No.1 is 68 years of age and is suffering from diabeties and metabolic disorder and petitioner No.2 is 64 years of old lady and is suffering from fracture in spine (T12) and are residing at Jaipur since 1982, therefore, there is no question of involvement of petitioners 1 and 2 in the alleged incident.
In support of the above arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swapnil & ORS.versus State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2014(2) WLC (SC) Cri.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as 4 well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2- complainant have argued that from bare reading of the FIR, prima facie case of commission of cognizable offence is made out against the petitioneRs.therefore, no interference is called for and this criminal misc.
petition preferred by the petitioners for quashing impugned FIR is liable to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR as well as the material placed on record.
It is not in dispute that from last so many yeaRs.relations between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.3 were not well.
The respondent No.2 has earlier filed a complaint against her in-laws alleging cruelty and dowry demand and in those proceedings, the learned trial court has acquitted the petitioner No.3 on account of compromise entered into between the parties.
It is also not in dispute that after acquittal of petitioner No.3, the respondent No.2 moved applications under Section 125 Cr.P.C.seeking maintenance and under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act and the same are pending.
The petitioner No.3 also filed a divorce petition, which is also pending.
5 Be that as it may, at present, the court is concerned with the fact that whether the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR constitute a prima facie case against the petitioners or not.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & ORS.V/s.
Bhajan Lal & ORS.reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing an FiRs.Information Report lodged in any police station while exercising the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C.and has held as under:- “102.
In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad 6 kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the FiRs.Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the FiRs.Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R.do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R.do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever 7 reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R.or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.”
In a later decision, the Hon'ble Supreme 8 Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj (MRS.& Anr.
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr.
reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has reiterated the above principle.
In the instant case, after reading the contents of the FIR in question, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
In the FIR, the respondent No.2 has specifically alleged that she and her daughter were assaulted and were tried to burn by all the petitioners when they were sitting in their room.
The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swapnil's case (supra).on which the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance, is not applicable in the present case because in that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.for quashing the proceedings, where the charges have been framed by the trial court.
Here in this case, till date, the investigation has not been completed by the police.
Hence, the 9 facts of the present case are quite different from facts of the Swapnil's case (supra).In such circumstances, in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred cases this Court does not find any merit in this Criminal Misc.
Petition as the petitioners have failed to make out a case for quashing the FIR in question.
Hence there is no force in this Criminal Misc.
The same is hereby dismissed.
Stay petition is also dismissed.