1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT (1) Raghuraj Rathore & Anr. vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2362 of 2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 204 0f 2008 lodged at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City for offence under sections 420 468 and 120 B IPC. (2) Raghuraj Rathore & Anr. vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2358 of 2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 200 of 2009 lodged at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City for offence under sections 420 468 and 120 B IPC. (3) Raghuraj Rathore & Anr. vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2359 of 2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 206 of 2009 lodged at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City for offence under sections 420 468 and 120 B IPC. (4) Raghuraj Rathore & anr. vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2360 of 2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 198 of 2009 lodged at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City for offence under sections 420 468 and 120 B IPC. (5)Raghuraj Rathore & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & ors. S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2361 of 2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 205 of 2009 lodged at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City for offence under sections 420 468 and 120 B IPC. Date of Order : Feb. 15 , 2010 2 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. A.K. Gupta for the petitioners Mr. Piyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor. Mr. Suresh Shahni, for the complainants. BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainants and the learned Public Prosecutor. Misc. Petitions Nos. 2362/2009, 2358/2009, 2359/2009 and 2360/2009 respectively have been filed by the petitioners Raghuraj and J.S. Rathore for quashing the FIR No. 204/2009 lodged by Dr. Radhey Shyam Gupta, FIR No.200/2009 lodged by Rajkumar Mehandirata, FIR No. 206/2009 lodged by Govind Kumar Ghiya and FIR No.198/2009 lodged by Dr. Jogendrapal Dua, and Misc. Petition No. 2361 has been filed by the petitioners Raghuraj, J.S.Rathore and C.K. Singh for quashing the FIR No.205/2009 lodged by Suresh Pareek. All these FIRs. have been registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City (South) for the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 120 B IPC. Since the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIRs in all these five misc. petitions in the matter of cheating the complainants for admission in MBA in K.J. Somaiya Institute of Management Studies and Research, Vidya Nagar, Vidhya Vihar (East) Mumbai, they are being disposed by this common order. 3 It may be mentioned that earlier the petitioners presented writ petitions and by the order of this court dated October 20, 2009 the writ petitions were converted into criminal miscellaneous petitions. Notices in all these petitions were issued to the complainants and after service of notice on them, Mr. Suresh Shahni puts in appearance on blehalf of the complainants in all these matters. Facts in Misc. Petition No.2362 of 2009 are taken into consideration. In the petition it has been submitted that the petitioner No.1 Raghuraj Rathore wanted admission in M.B.A. Course in Mumbai and his father petitioner No.2 came in contact with Mahaveer Sarang and Sushil Bishnoi. They assured them that they can arrange the admission in K.J. Somaiya Institute of Management Studies and Research, Vidya Nagar, Vidya Vihar (East) Mumbai. They confirmed that they have to make payment of Rs. 7,50,000/- as donation and it is an additional amount. The petitioners were directed to prepare a draft of Rs. 1,10,000/- in the name of SIMSR, Mumbai. The petitioner No.2 along with his son went to Mumbai. At Mumbai they were introduced to Dr. Shreenivasan as admission and management committee member. The formalities were completed in connection with admission and amount was paid along with demand draft. Further a demand draft of Rs. 25,000 was also asked, which was prepared and given to Mr. Shashi Shekhar Sharma. The petitioner No.2 J.S. Rathore received admission letter and receipts of demand drtaft. They also collected Rs. 7,50,000/- cash from the petitioners. When they went to Mumbai to join the institute they came to know that no such admission 4 letter or demand draft has been received by the institute. Along with the petition, the petitioners filed following documents : (1) Photostat copy of letter issued by Porof. P.V. Narsimham, Director General, K.J. Somaiya Institute of Managerment Studies and Research Mumbai. (2) Photocopy of receipt of Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 1,10,000 by the Management Institute, Mumbai. (3) Photostat copy of schedule of fees for PGDM Programme (4)Photostat copy of confirmation letter for admission of Raghu Raj Singh dated 2.2.2009. In the petition, it has been stated that on coming to know that they have been cheated at Mumbai, the petitioner Jogendra Singh immediately lodged complaint against Mr. Shashi Shekhar Sharma, Mahavir Sarang and Mr. Sushil Bishnoi, with the Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone VI, 4th Floor New Administration Building, GM Marg, Mumbai. The Police at Tilak Nagar, Police Station registered the FIR No.159 of 2009. It has been stated in the petition that the complainant Dr. Radhey Shyam Gupta came to know about the admission of the petitioner Raghuraj Rathore in K.J. Somaiya Institute of Management Studies Mumbai he contacted the petitioner No.2 J.S. Rathore, who stated the facts about admission of his son. The complainant Radhey Shyam Gupta himself went to Mumbai, met with those persons and paid the amount at Mumbai. It has been stated in the petition that when the petitioners were cheated at Mumbai and stated about lodging of the FIR, the complainant Radhey Shyam was also told to lodge the report at Mumbai. A sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- cash and two drafts of 2,85,000 and 35,000 were returned to the complainant by the accused Sumit Sharma. When full 5 amount was not received by the complainant Radhey Shyam Gupta then instead of lodging report at Mumbai lodged the report at Jaipur implicating the petitioners. The occurrence took place on 15.4.2009 and the FIR was lodged on 23.8.2009 at 6.50 p.m. on the basis of complaint submitted by Dr. Radhey Shyam Gupta before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.8 Jaipur City on 19.8.2009 FIR No. 204/2009 was registered. The petitioners submitted that in order to humiliate and pressurize them the complainants filed the FIR against them, hence they made prayer for quashing the same. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the FIRs. lodged against the petitioners are unconstitutional. The criminal proceeding is manifestly initiated with malafide intention and the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite him to private and personal grudge, which is clear from the facts of the case. The petitioners stated that the cases of the petitioners are squarely covered by the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal AIR 1982 SC 604. There was no intention of the petitioners to cheat the complainants. From perusal of the FIRs. it is clear that the dispute is between complainants and other persons Shashi Shekhar Sharma and Sumit Sharma to whom the complainants made payment and the complaints received back some amount from them. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and others (AIR 2001 SC 2637). Mr.Suresh Shahni, learned counsel for the complainants and Mr. Peeyush Kumar, learned Public 6 Prosecutor argued that the FIRs completely disclosed the commission of offence by the accused petitioners and the accused petitioners cheated the complainants and in the garb of giving admission to the complainants sons in MBA course at Mumbai stated them to make payments and they have introduced some persons at Mumbai. The complainants made payment but did not get admissions and on being cheated by the petitioners filed the complaints before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, who forwarded them to the Police Station, Jyoti Nagar, where the same were registered as FIRs. as mentioned above. The FIRs. completely disclosed that the accused petitioners and other accused cheated the complainants. The FIRs. were rightly registered against them. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the money taken from the complainants has to be recovered by the investigating agency. Thus it is a clear case of cheating the complainants and their sons. The petitioners have filed these misc. petitions for getting the FIRs. quashed. The matter has to be investigated and without investigation in the matter, the truth cannot be found out. In these circumstances the learned counsel for the complainants and the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the petitions filed by the accused petitioners are an abuse of process of law. Both the counsel argued that the petitions filed by the petitioners are liable to be rejected. The learned counsel for the complainants and the learned Public Prosecutor in support of their arguments placed reliance on State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and State of Karnataka and another vs. Pastor P. Raju (AIR 2006 SC 2825). 7 Before proceeding further it would be necessary to have a look at the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., which reads as under : 482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. 482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is also necessary to have a look at the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in State of Harayana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, which are as under : (a) where the allegations made in the First informationReport 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; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investi- gation 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; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose 265 the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) 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 155(2) of the Code; (e) 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; (f) 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 institu- tion 8 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; (g) 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. [305D-H; 306A-E] In State of Karnataka and another vs. Pastor P. Raju, the Apex Court in para 11 observed as under : 11. There is another aspect of the matter which deserves notice. The FIR in the case was lodged on 15.1.2005 and the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed within 12 days on 27.1.2005 when the investigation had just commenced. The petition was allowed by the High Court on 23.2.2005 when the investigation was still under progress. No report as contemplated by Section 173 Cr.P.C. had been submitted by the incharge of the police station concerned to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves inherent powers of the High Court and such a power can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings pending in any Court but the power cannot be exercised to interfere with the statutory power of the police to conduct investigation in a cognizable offence. This question has been examined in detail in Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr. (2003) 6 SCC 195, where after referring to King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18, H.N. Rishbud & Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC 196, State of West Bengal v. SN Basak AIR 1963 SC 447, Abhinandan Jha & Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra AIR 1968 SC 117 and State of Bihar & Anr. v. JAC Saldanha & Ors. (1980) 1 SCC 554, it was observed as under in para 20 of the reports :- "20. Thus the legal position is absolutely clear and also settled by judicial authorities that the Court would not interfere with the investigation or during the course of investigation which would mean from the time of the lodging of the First Information Report till the submission of the report by the officer in charge of police station in court under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., this field being exclusively reserved for the investigating agency." This being the settled legal position, the High Court ought not to have interfered with and quashed the entire proceedings in exercise of 9 power conferred by Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the matter was still at the investigation stage. I have gone through the FIRs., particularly the documents enclosed with the petitions and the arguments submitted by both the parties and cases relied upon by them and the principles enunciated above in the cases of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others (supra) and State of Karnataka and another vs. Pastor P. Raju (supra), in my considered opinion at this stage in the instant cases, the allegations made in the FIRs., do clearly constitute a cognizable offence and cases do not call for the exercise of inherent powers of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the F.I.Rs. The cases are still under investigation and the police is in the process of collecting evidence. The investigation is necessary and the same cannot be stopped at this stage in a proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the above, the misc. petitions filed by the accused petitioners are rejected. The interim orders if any stand vacated. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/