CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-33625 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 07, 2011 Kuldeep Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab 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. S. K. Khurcha, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of FIR registered against them under Section 376 alongwith Sections 342, 323, 120-B IPC. It is pleaded that the FIR is false and is a misuse of process. Can an issue of falsity of FIR for an offence as serious as `Rape' can be quashed by invoking inherent jurisdiction, leading to scuttling the trial, would be a question directly confronting the Court. The case set up is that the FIR is not registered on the statement of the complainant but some persons named CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-33625 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: Simranjit Singh and Jasdeep Singh had put pressure upon the complainant-respondent No.2 and had forced her to sign the blank papers in Police Station. As per the petitioners, they were not aware of the registration of the FIR but were so apprised by some persons from Makhu, District Ferozepur. It is averred that the attempt was made to contact the complainant but Simranjit Singh and others did not allow her to meet the complainant. She is statedly working as domestic servant. It is also disclosed that the complainant has escaped from the clutches of these persons and she has accordingly apprised the petitioners that she did not make any statement before the police. It is stated that the complainant had also made an application for cancellation of this FIR before SSP, Ferozepur. Some affidavit executed by the complainant is also referred to show that she does not wish to pursue the FIR any further. This FIR is stated to be a counter-blast to the FIR No.105 dated 1.8.2011 registered under Sections 365, 453, 323, 148, 149 IPC and 3/4 of S.C and S.T Act at the instance of the petitioners. Can this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., go into the factual position, that too on the basis of affidavits and the averments made in the petition, has to be first addressed. If really respondent No.2 has not lodged this complaint, she can appear before the CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-33625 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: investigating agency and record her statement. She can also appear before the Court to make a statement if she has not lodged this complaint against the petitioners. It can be that this complaint is a counter-blast but equally the complaint can be true and the petitioners may have now won over the complainant to make her change her version. All these matters are to be investigated and then if necessary, put to trial before a Court of competent jurisdiction. Invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. in serious offence like Rape, which is an offence against the Society at large, can not be termed as proper or appropriate. The facts are in serious dispute. The allegation or falsity thereof is required to be proved and established either by way of investigation or before a court of law. Interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is certainly not called for to decide the falsity or veracity of the allegation. Rather, this is not a permissible course. Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been well defined in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and others, 2004(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 233. It is observed 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 CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-33625 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: 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. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. November 07, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE