HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6487/2019 [ENTITY] S/o Shri Kanaji Choudhary, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Mandavala, District Jalore. Petitioner Versus 1. [ENTITY], Through P.p. 2. [ENTITY] W/o Rana Ram Choudhary, Mandavala, District Jalore. Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr [ENTITY] Mr. [ENTITY] For Respondent(s) : Ms. [ENTITY], Pp HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment / Order 11/12/2019 The instant criminal misc. petition under [SECTION] [ACT] has been filed for quashing of FIR No.0566/2019 registered at Police Station Jalore for offence under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], 379 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has deliberately lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioner on the basis of false, frivolous and bogus allegations. It is submitted that the petitioner has not made encroachment over the land of Gram Panchayat, Mandavala whereas he is raising the construction over the land under his ownership. The petitioner has neither used any criminal force to deter the complainant in discharging the official duty, nor stolen away any board of Gram Panchayat, as alleged. It is submitted that the allegation of causing injury to the complainant during discharge of official duty is also false and frivolous. The complainant is keeping animosity with the petitioner due to political rivalry, therefore the (2 of 5) [CASE NUMBER]] complainant lodged the impugned FIR with a view to harass and humiliate the petitioner. Therefore it is prayed that the FIR in question may be quashed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. I have considered the arguments and perused the FIR. From the perusal of the FIR, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence has been committed. The specific allegations of causing injury to the complainant while discharging the official duty have been levelled in the FIR against the petitioner. On perusal of FIR, it appears that the petitioner [ENTITY] came at the dispute site along with 4-5 persons and started construction. On receiving information, the complainant reached at the disputed site with some other persons and warned the petitioner from raising any construction over the disputed site, upon which the petitioner used abusive language against the complainant and also misbehaved with her. Further the petitioner forcibly took the boards of Gram Panchayat with him and also threatened the complainant for dire consequences. The allegations in the complaint prima facie satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence alleged. The police has statutory right to investigate the matter. No case is made out for quashing of FIR.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], laid down guidelines for exercising inherent powers under [SECTION] [ACT] to quash FIR and criminal proceedings. The Court held:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under [SECTION] and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under [SECTION] or the inherent powers under [SECTION] 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 (3 of 5) [CASE NUMBER]] defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the first 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 first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under [SECTION] of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of [SECTION] 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 FIR 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] 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 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.
103. 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 FIR 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."
(4 of 5) [CASE NUMBER]] Yet again, Supreme Court, in case of [PRECEDENT], while relying on [ENTITY] case (supra), held:
"This inherent power conferred by [SECTION] of the Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to the cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. This Court in [PRECEDENT]., to which both of us were parties have dealt with this question at length and enunciated the law listing out the circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction in quashing proceedings. We do not, therefore, think it necessary in the present case to extensively deal with the import and intendment of the powers under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Code."
In another decision in the case of [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under [SECTION] [ACT], the High Court cannot go beyond the allegations made in the F.I.R or rely upon extraneous consideration. For the purpose of finding out the commission of a cognizable offence, the High Court is only required to look into the allegations made in the complaint or the F.I.R.
In a subsequent decision, [PRECEDENT], in a case under the [ACT], Supreme Court affirmed the order passed by the High Court whereby it declined to exercise inherent powers for quashment of criminal proceedings. The Court observed:
"It is a settled legal proposition that while considering the case for quashing of the criminal proceedings the court should not "kill a still born child", and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. An investigation should (5 of 5) [CASE NUMBER]] not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. When a prosecution at the initial stage is to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie establish the offence. At this stage neither can the court embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence nor should the court judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. More so, the charge-sheet filed or charges framed at the initial stage can be altered/amended or a charge can be added at the subsequent stage, after the evidence is adduced in view of the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT]. So, the order passed even by the High Court or this Court is subject to the order which would be passed by the trial Court at a later stage."
In another case of [PRECEDENT], Supreme Court, while reiterating the principles laid down in [PRECEDENT] (supra) on scope of exercise of powers under [SECTION] [ACT], held:
"It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under [SECTION] [ACT] has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice [See [PRECEDENT]]. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under [SECTION], [ACT] [See [PRECEDENT]]. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. [See [PRECEDENT]]."
In the facts and circumstances of the case so also in the light of the judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court, no case for quashing of FIR No. 0566/2019 registered at Police Station Jalore is made out.
Hence, this misc. petition is hereby dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.
([ENTITY] 80-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)