1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT SHOBHA LAL & ORS. vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN S.B.CriminaL Misc. Petition No.666/2009 under section 482 Cr.P.C. For quashing of FIR and further investigation in FIR No.91/2009 Police Station Kapasan, District Chittorgarh for the offence under section 436, 427, 147 and 149 IPC and 3 (1)(X) & (2) and (3) SC/ST Act. ........... Date of Judgment: 9 November, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr.Umesh Shrimali for the petitioners. Mr.A..R.Nikub, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : By way of instant petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have challenged the registration of First Information Report No.91/2009 lodged at Police Station Kapasan, District Chittorgarh for the offence under section 436, 427, 147, 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(X), (2) and (3) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner has wrongly named District Ganganagar in his petition. 2 The relevant facts giving rise to the present petition are that one Madhu Nath s/o Nanji b/c Kalbelian, r/o Gadariavas, lodged an oral report at Police Station Kapasan, stating that on 11.03.09 at about 10.00 PM his family members were sleeping in their house, then about 80-90 persons came on 15-20 motorcycles and while abusing by caste, poured kerosene on their house and lit fire to their houses. First of all, fire was lit in his house then to the house of Ratan , Sohan and Omkar. On this report, FIR 91/2009 was registered against the present petitioners under afore-mentioned sections. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the report of Heera s/o Nagji a FIR No.90/2009 under section 436, 427, 323, 147 and 149 IPC and section 3(1)(X), (2) and (3) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , was registered in the same police station. Therefore, subsequent first information report, for the same offence, cannot be registered and further no investigation can be continued. Therefore, subsequent FIR No.91/2009 be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that on the relevant date, petitioners committed separate offence under the above provisions in respect of properties of separate persons. Therefore, separate FIRs were lodged and, therefore, there are no grounds to quash the subsequent first information report. The learned counsel for the petitioners , while advancing 3 his above arguments relied on the following judgments :- Badrigiri vs. State of Rajasthan ( 2004 (2) Cr.L.R. [Raj.] 1330), and T.T.Antony vs. State of Kerala [2001 Cr.L.R. (SC) 633] with other matters. I have gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the two first information reports in question. The earlier first information report lodged by Heera s/o Nanji is confined only to the commission of offence of hurling caste abuses and liting fire to his own house by an unlawful assembly. It does not specifically refer to putting on fire to other house of Madhu Nath. Investigation of FIR No. 90/2009 is confined to initial distinguished act, which in itself constitute a separate offence. Since it does not refer to the incident of liting fire to the house of Madhu Nath which is the subject matter of investigation in FIR No.91/2009 , therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR No.90/2009 and 91/2009 constitute the same offence in respect of the same property. In State Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], the Hon'ble Supreme Court propounded the following categories of cases wherein the inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court, while holding that though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible 4 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 offfence 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, except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) 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 no 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 5 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. The facts of the cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are different to the facts of the present case in 6 hand. In Badrigiri 's case (supra) second FIR was lodged after submission of the final report in the first information report was registered on same facts, whereas in the present case two separate FIRs were lodged by two different complainants. May be the real brothers , alleging the separate offences in respect of their separate properties. In T.T.Antony's case (supra) also after completion of investigation in respect of an offence second FIR was lodged on m the same facts. Hon'ble apex court, while considering the illustrative cases propounded in the case of State of A.P. vs. Bajjoori Kanthaiah [2008 AIR SCW 7860] held as under :- “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 7 of 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 cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage (see: Janata Dal etc. v. H.C. Choudhary and others etc. (AIR 1993 SC 892). Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar and another ( AIR 1964 SC 1). 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. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code. It is not , however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The compliant /FIR has to be read as a while. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the FIR that the 8 ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint /FIR is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious , in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the malafides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. “ Thus, keeping in view the above principles, this is not a case where it can be said that the FIR did not disclose commission of the offence or that it was registered with malafide intention or it is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. Both the FIRs in the instant case relate to separate properties, having independent ownership of separate complainants. At the most accused may submit before competent court for joint trial of the case if needed and law permits. Thus, in the entirety of the facts, no case is made out to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the subsequent FIR No.91/2009 of Police Station Kapasan, District Chittorgarh. The petition being devoid of merit, is hereby, dismissed. (KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI),J. L.george