CRIMINAL MISC.-M NO.36372 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 02, 2011 Joga Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Though accused of such a serious offence as rape is, the petitioner still claims himself to be law abiding citizen and pleads his false implication to seek quashing of FIR registered against him under Sections 376, 328 and 506 IPC. This FIR was registered against the petitioner on 18.2.2010. The facts, as pleaded, would show that the complainant has lodged this complaint in regard to an incident, which is five years old. The petitioner claims this to be an outcome of jealousy and just to harass the petitioner CRIMINAL MISC.-M NO.36372 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: as he has immigrated from India. The allegations as made in the FIR registered on an application made to S.S.P., Karnal, by respondent Bhupinder Kaur reveals that the complainant had come to the house of her Aunt-in-law (husband's Mousi) at Village Alipur. The petitioner was the neighbour of said Aunt-in-law. The petitioner allegedly had a bad eye on the complainant and so she returned to Shahbad. One day, she had gone to Mahabir Dal Hospital, Karnal, for some medical problem, when the petitioner met her enroute by chance and took her to Sudarshan Hospital, where he offered a cold drink to the complainant. After taking this, she lost her consciousness and later learnt that she was raped. Thereafter, the petitioner threatened the complainant to kill, besides telling her that he had filmed her nude and if she complained, then he would send the film to her parents. The petitioner also allegedly promised to marry the complainant and undertook to take care of her children. Because of fear, the complainant appears to have succumbed to the wishes of the petitioner and now has filed this complaint, leading to registration of FIR. The petitioner otherwise apparently has not disputed his relationship with the complainant. The petitioner rather claims that he was having love affair with the complainant and she has now complained because the CRIMINAL MISC.-M NO.36372 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 3 }: petitioner has settled in Malaysia. The petitioner would also submit that the complainant is 32 years old lady and married for 12 years and, thus, he could not have blackmailed her. The petitioner still is a bachelor. In this background, the petitioner pleads that the allegations in the FIR are fake, frivolous, contradictory and are based on imagination just to blackmail him. The petitioner pleads that prosecution can not be initiated on such imaginary complaints and so has filed this petition for quashing of the said FIR. The prayer as made by the petitioner certainly sound beyond the purview of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Whether any complaint or FIR is fake, frivolous or contradictory can only be examined and decided on the basis of trial and the evidence that will be produced. Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can not be invoked to term any complaint or FIR to be fake or imaginary or frivolous. These aspects are required to be proved by leading cogent evidence. The prosecution has also to be given an opportunity to prove and substantiate the allegations. On the basis of averments made in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the support of some affidavits, the complaint or FIR can not be termed as fake, frivolous or imaginary. Reference in this regard can be made to State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and CRIMINAL MISC.-M NO.36372 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 4 }: others, 2004(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 233, wherein it has been held that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are 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 magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. The Court has further held that it would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. CRIMINAL MISC.-M NO.36372 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 5 }: No case, therefore, is made out to quash the FIR as serious as this, which is allegedly rape. There is no ground otherwise made out, for which the prayer of the petitioner can even be considered. The society at large would be aggrieved against such like offences, which contains allegations of use and violation to body of a lady under the fear of threat. How such allegations can be termed as false or frivolous, when the petitioner himself concedes to be having an affair with the lady, would also be otherwise beyond comprehension. There is no merit in any of the pleas raised by the petitioner, The petition is, therefore, dismissed. December 02, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE