Aff{ H1GH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (CT N0. 4014 OF 2007 Shyam Sharma, aged about 45 years, son of Late Ramlakhan Sharma, resident of Sadar Bazar, Champa, PS Champa, DtetrictJanjgir-Champa (CQ). :=?^ESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhatysgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Horne Affairs, Kaiyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C©). , 2. The StaSion House Officer, PS Champa, Dlstrict Janjgir-Champa (CG). 3. Shankar La! Gupta, son of Late Jharu Ram Gupta, aged about 45 years, resident of Majhali Talab, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (CG), (Wri{ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Sridia) Sinaie Bench : Hon'bie Shrj Satish K. ABnihotri, J. Present:- Shri T.K. Tiwari, counssi for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Goyt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on ihis 15th day of Juiy, 2009) 1. Heard isarned counse! for the parties. 2. Bv fhis oetition, the Detitioner seeks fcr quashment of the First Snformation Report (for short 'the FIR") dated 1-5-20)7 (Annexure - P/5) registered at Police Stafion Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, bearing crime No.116/2007 for offences punishabte under the provisions of Sections 302, 331 and 147 ofthe tndian Penat Code. 3. The facts, in nutsheli, as projected by the petitioner, are that on 23-2- 2007 in a marriage function, the son of the respondent No.3 namely; Rohit @ Motu Gupta (since deceased) sfole one bag for which a report was lodged in Poiice Station Champa, Dlstrict Janjgir-Champa. On receipt of the report, the Poiice personnel aiong with the petittoner. who is one of the invitee of the said marriage function. and others went to the house of the respondent No.3 and enquired about hls son Rohit @ Motu Gupte. Rohit informed the poiice that he had :.,PsyT''<ife, /^'sa% ''%, 4. 6. z-' keptthe stolen bag underthe Railway Bridge. Accordingly, the pofce went to the spot along with Rohit where Rohit jumped from 40 ft. height and sustained severai injuries and became unconscious. During treatment he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him on 24-2-2007. Thereafter, FIR (Annexure - P/5) has been todged by the respondent No.3 against the petitioner and other persons. Thus, this petition. Shri Tiwari, iearned counsel appearing for the petitionsr, submlts that the petitioner has no role with the crime in question and the petitioner participated in the marriage function only as an invitee. The petitioner belongs to a reputed family and he has no criminal antecedents. The alieged incident took p!ace on 24-2-2007 whereas the FIR was iodged on 1-5-2007 with a deiay of more than two months without explaining the reasons for delay in lodging the same. There is no prima facie evidence against the petitioner; however, the respondent No.2 i.e. the Station House Officer registered the FIR in an illegal and arbitrary manner. have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is trite that ie Court shouid exercise the power of quashing the FtR or criminal proceedings in the rarest of rare cases. The Court shoutd not embark upon an enquiry asto the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the ailegations made in the FIR or the complaint. The Hon'ble Suoreme Court in State of Harvana and Others vs. Shajan La! and Others observed that the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia may be exercised if the FIR or the compiaint, 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 againstthe accused. 1992 Supp(1)SCC 335 •€^' %'j ^'•^ .^f" 10. Gowri ^^ Subsequently, the ratio laid down in Bhajan Lai (supra), has been referred with approva! in Manzar Sayeed Khan vs. State of Maharashtra and Another^, in Reshma Bano vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others and in Ooond'a Venkateswariu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another. In the case on hand, e petltioner has been named in the FIR alleging his participation in the crime in question. it cannot be held that 'it does not constitute anv offence. This is a case where no writ quashing the F!R can be issued. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, without exprassing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is liabte to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. } ^ Sd/- i SatishK.Agnihom Judge 2 (2007) 5 SCC 1 3 (2008)58cc 791 A(2008)9SCC613