Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 792 (RAJ)

Jai Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2001-05-07

H.R.PANWAR

body2001
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the accused-petitioner seeks quashing of criminal proceedings pending against him before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilara for the offences under Section 283 and 304A, IPC. 2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are that on 20-5-99, a first information report No. 180 was lodged by one Jagmal Ram Bishnoi at police sta-tion, Bilara for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A, IPC. After investigation, chargesheet No. 111 dated 3 1-5-99 was laid before the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 283, IPC. On 22-6-99, a report was filed by one Jogaram sb Ramchand before the Additional Superintendent of Police (Rural), Jodhpur stating therein that on 20-5-99 at about 8.30 PM a tractor trolly duly loaded with fertilizers was negligently parked in the middle of Bilara-Bhavi road by its driver Jairarn without there being any signal of its being stationary and as such three persons namely: Deva Ram, Narenrdra Singh and Om Prakash who were proceeding on a motor-cycle collided with the stationary trolly and sustained severe injuries. Ultimately due to this accident all the three succumbed to the injuries. On this report, the Additional Superintendent of Police (Rural), Jodhpur directed the Station House Officer, Bilara that if new facts are brought relating to the occurrence then further investigation be carried out. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the police investigated the matter and recorded the statements ot Jagmal Ram on 24-7-99 and Jogaram and Shyamlal on 27-7-99. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses filed supplementary charge-sheet No. 111-A dated 30-7-99 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 304A, IPC. The learned trial Court by its order dated 28-8-99 took cognizance of the offence under Section 304A against the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved by the order impugned dated 28-8-99 by which the learned trial Court took cognizance of the aforesaid offences, the petitioner filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing of the order taking cognizance and criminal proceedings. 4. I haveheard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the challan papers and relevant materials collected by the Investigating Officer. 5. P.C. for quashing of the order taking cognizance and criminal proceedings. 4. I haveheard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the challan papers and relevant materials collected by the Investigating Officer. 5. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the police has filed the challan against the petitioner for the offence under Section 283,1 .P.C. then no further investigation ought to have been conducted and, therefore, further investigation conducted by the investigating officer and supplementary chargesheet filed against the petitioner, on which, the learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 304A, IPC is contrary to law and on this count, the petitioner sought quashing of entire proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this petition and supported the order of the learned trial Court. 7. Section 173, Cr. P.C. envisaged the provisions regarding report of police officer on completion of investigation. Sub-section. (2) of Section 173, Cr. P.C. provides that as soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government stating (a) the name of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the cases (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170. 8. Sub-section (8) of Section 173, Cr. P.C. provides that nothing in this Section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under Sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, whereupon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed and the provisions of Sub-section (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under Sub-section (2). Thus, it is clear that after investigation under this Chapter is complete and report is forwarded as envisaged under Sub-section. (2) of Section 173, Cr. P.C. to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, the police officer investigating or the SHO of the concerned police station is not precluded to further investigate in respect of the offence and forward the additional report, upon which, such investigation, the Magistrate concerned is empowred to take cognizance. In the instant case, initially the S.H.O. police Station, Bilara laid the charge-sheet No. 111 dated 31-5-99 as envisaged under Sub-sec. (2) of Section 173, Cr. P.C. but by exercising the powers under Sub-section (8) of Section 173, Cr. P.C. the SHO of the concerned Police Station conducted further investigation in respect of the offence under Section 304A, IPC recorded the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and filed a supplementary charge-sheet No. 111-A dated 3 0-7-99 by which the offence under Section 304A., IPC was added against the accused-petitioner and the learned trial Court vide order impugned dated 28-8-99 took cognizance of the offence under Section 304A, IPC against the accused-petitioner. .9. In State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri, 1996 (1) SCC 542 : 1996 CriLJ 1127, their Lordships of the .Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under at page 1133 of CriLJ :-"The Court should not except in extraordinary circumstances, exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P.C. so as to quash the prosecution proceedings after they have been launched. At the stage of quashing a first information or complaint, the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein." .10. P.C. so as to quash the prosecution proceedings after they have been launched. At the stage of quashing a first information or complaint, the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein." .10. Similarly, in Rupam Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, 1995 (6) SCC 194 : 1996 CriLJ 381, their Lordships .of Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus at page 383 of CriLJ-"We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability of genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim and caprice." 11. Similarly, in State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, 1996 (7) SCC 705 : 1996 CriLJ 1878, their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under at page 1881 of CriLJ :--"When the Court exercises its inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P.C., the prime con-sideration should only be whether the exercise of the power would advance the cause of justice or it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. When investigating officer spends considerable time to collect the evidence and places the chargesheet before the Court, further action should not be short-circuited by resorting to exercise inherent power to quash the charge-sheet." Their Lordships further observed thus :--"The High Court should be loath to interfere at the threshold to thwart the prosecution exercising its inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. or under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution as the case may be, and allow the law to take its own course." .12. P.C. or under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution as the case may be, and allow the law to take its own course." .12. In State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla, 1996 SCC (Cri) 628 : 1996 CriLJ 1372, their Lordships of the Hon’ble .Supreme Court observed as under at Page 1373 of Cri.L.J:--"It has been held by this Court in several cases that the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proce dure should be very sparingly and cautiously used only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court, if such power is not exercised. So far as the order of cognizance by a Magistrate is concerned, the inherent power can be exercised when the allegations in the first information report or the complaint together with the other materials collected during investigation taken at their face value, do not constitute the offence alleged. At that stage, it is not open for the Court either to sift the evidence or appreciate the evidence and come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out." .13. In State of T.N. v. Thtrukkural Perumal, 1995 (2) SCC 449 , their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court .observed as under:-"The normal process of the criminal trial cannot be cut short in a rather casual manner. The Court, is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made to the FIR or the complaint on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation only while dealing with a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. seeking the quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceedings." 14. In the light of the Judgment s of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the law laid down by their Lordships, I have examined the materials placed on record. In my considered opinion, there is ample material on record of the learned trial Court to take cognizance of the offences Under Section 283 and 304-A, 1PC against the accused-petitioner. It is not at all a fit case which “needs interference by this Court, in the order passed by the learned trial Court taking cognizance. In my considered opinion, there is ample material on record of the learned trial Court to take cognizance of the offences Under Section 283 and 304-A, 1PC against the accused-petitioner. It is not at all a fit case which “needs interference by this Court, in the order passed by the learned trial Court taking cognizance. I am of the view that the order impugned would not result in manifest injustice or abuse of process of the Court in any manner. 15. Inview of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any substance in this petition and the same is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, this petition fails and it is hereby dismissed.