Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 232 (MP)

Rajju @ Rajkumar v. State of M. P.

2003-02-04

NARAIN SINGH

body2003
ORDER Narain Singh "Azad", J. 1. The petitioners seek quashment of FIR in Crime No. 132/2002, of Police Station, Shahpura, Distt. Dindori, and a direction that the aforesaid crime be investigated by some independent agency. 2. Before examining the facts, it would be useful to consider the legal position on the question under what circumstances and in what categories of cases the High Court can quash the FIR or a complaint, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are explained by Their Lordships of Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, reported in 1992 AIR SCW 237, the relevant portion runs as under:-- "In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised." (1) Where the allegations made in the FIR 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. (2) Where the allegations in the FIR and other materials accompanying FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation under Section 156(1) Cr.PC except an order of a Magistrate under Section 155(2), Cr.PC. (3) Where uncontroverted allegations in the FIR or the complaint and the evidence collected in support, do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence. (3) Where uncontroverted allegations in the FIR or the complaint and the evidence collected in support, do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence. (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 the Cr.PC or the concerned Act to the institution of criminal proceeding or where there is specific provision in the Cr.PC or concerned Act providing efficacious redress. (?) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide or where 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. "We also give a note of caution of 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 or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extra-ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." 3. Then, it is explained by Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill and Anr. that under Section 482 of the Cr.PC the High Court was not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR. Supreme Court set aside the order of quashing the FIR in the absence of recording of findings that the allegations in the FIR were absurd and inherently improbable. 4. As per FIR in aforesaid Crime No. 139/2002, of Police Station, Shahpura, Distt. Supreme Court set aside the order of quashing the FIR in the absence of recording of findings that the allegations in the FIR were absurd and inherently improbable. 4. As per FIR in aforesaid Crime No. 139/2002, of Police Station, Shahpura, Distt. Dindori, for offences punishable under Sections 452, 294, 506, 147 and 148 of the IPC are found registered gainst these petitioner on the following allegations, which form part of the First Information Report;-- ^^;g fd jaft'k dk eq[; dkj.k gS fd vfHk;qx.ksa ds foi{k esa vf/kok gksus ds ukrs vfHk;ksxh ds cM+s HkkbZ nhipan lkgw fofHkUu U;k;ky;ksa esa iSjoh dj jgs gSaA 1 ;g fd fnukad 11&1&2002 dh jkf= yxHkx 2 cts vfHk;qx.k ,d jk; gksdj vfHk;ksxh ds njokts esa 'kjkc dh u'ks dh gkyr esa ykBh ,oa iRFkj ekjus yxs tc vfHk;ksxh cksyk D;ksa njoktk rksM+s Mky jgs gks rc jktdqekj cksyk rqEgkjk HkkbZ odhy vkSj xzke iapk;r esa iap Hkh gS] ml eknj pksn us eq>s 420 esa tsy fHktok;k gS vkSj esjh ifRu dks ljiap in ls gVokus ds fy, ,l-Mh-,e- 'kkgiqj ds ;gka odkyr dj jgk gSA njoktk [kksydj mls ?kj ls ckgj fudkyks rc vfHk;ksxh us dgk fd esjs cM+s HkkbZ dk LokLF; [kjkc gS bykt djkus tcyiqj x, gq, gSaA 2 ;g fd vfHk;qx.k cyiwoZd njoktk rksM+dj vfHk;ksxh ds ?kj esa ?kql x,A y{eh frokjh] f'ko dqekj dkNh vfHk;ksxh dks tku ls ekjus dh /kedh eka cgu dh xanh&xanh xkyh nsrs gq, >wek >Vdh djus yxs blh chp vfHk;ksxh ds ?kj dh efgyk,a rFkk lEiw.kZ ifjokj ds lnL; vk;s rks mUgsa Hkh vfHk;qx.k eka&cgu dh xkfy;ka fn;s vfHk;ksxh rFkk mlds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa us fpYyk;k xkao iM+ksl ds vk;s rc vfHk;qx.k lHkh vfHk;ksxh ds ?kj ls fudy dj Hkkxs rc vfHk;ksxh rFkk mlds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dh tku cphA 3 ;g fd jkf= dk le; Fkk vkSj vfHk;qx.k cksys fd ;fn fjiksVZ djksxs rks xkao esaa ugha jgus nsaxs tku ls ekj nsaxs ,oa vkfnoklh ,DV esa Qalk nsaxsA gekjk dksbZ dqN ugha fcxkM+ ldrk gSA** 5. Thus, examining the aforesaid allegations levelled against these petitioners in the FIR, the FIR is not found liable to be quashed in the light of legal position explained above. 6. So far as the request of investigation by independent agency is concerned, on a perusal of case diary of FIR of Crime No. 139/2002 of Police Station, Shahpura, Distt. Thus, examining the aforesaid allegations levelled against these petitioners in the FIR, the FIR is not found liable to be quashed in the light of legal position explained above. 6. So far as the request of investigation by independent agency is concerned, on a perusal of case diary of FIR of Crime No. 139/2002 of Police Station, Shahpura, Distt. Dindori, reveals that the investigation is already concluded in respect of aforesaid crime and only the petitioner/accused are required to be arrested. Since the reliability or genuineness of the allegatiosn is not to be enquired into or determined in exercise of inherent powers, therefore, a direction for further investigation by some independent agency, is also not permissible in exercise of inherent powers. 7. Then it is also found dictated by Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Washeshar Nath Chadha v. The State, reported in that :-- "Court cannot interfere in exercise of the power under Section 482, Cr.PC in the collection of evidence and arrest even by illegal methods." Thus, in exercise of inherent powers, the direction for investigation by independent agency is not required to be made under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case and hence this petition has no merit, which is liable to be rejected in toto. 8. In result this petition stands disallowed and rejected accordingly.