Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 229 (CHH)

DEVENDRA KUMAR @ DEVA v. STATE OF C. G.

2004-12-13

S.K.SINHA

body2004
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has prayed for the quashment of FIR of Crime No. 117 of 2004 registered at Police Station Utai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under section 354, 294 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code and in consequence, also for quashment of entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 324/2004 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on a First Information Report lodged by one Kumari Bai Sahu, a married lady aged about 30 years, the aforesaid crime no. 117/2004 was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 354, 294 and 323 of IPC. The First Information Report contains the name of the petitioner. It further contains that on the date of incident i.e. 29-3-2004 at about 12.30 p.m., the complainant went to the Photo Studio of the petitioner for taking out her photographs for preparation of a Gard hold by the persons coming below the poverty line. She was all alone. The petitioner took her inside the studio and said her to sit there. Thereafter, he caught hold the hand of the prosecutrix saying that ^^pyh dk** and thereafter he started pulling the prosecutrix towards him. He also tried to pull off the 'Saree' of the prosecutrix. On this, the prosecutrix gave 3-4 slaps to him and ultimately she came out from the Studio. The petitioner also came out from the Studio and started abusing the prosecutrix. He also assaulted the prosecutrix on her back and the head. 3. As mentioned above, the incident took place on 29-3-2004 at about 12.30 hours and the FIR was lodged on the same day at 13.00 hours During the course of investigation, the Police recorded the statements of the complainant Kumari Bai, Roop Ram, Kishan Dewangan, Sitaram, Mahesh Yadav and Panchram and send the prosecutrix for medical examination and thereafter the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Durg under the aforementioned sections. 4. First Class, Durg under the aforementioned sections. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, he has neither committed nor pm1icipated in any such act, which may amount to any of the offences referred to above. He also submits that the petitioner is a Press Reporter and he is running a small Photo Studio. He is also a member of ISPAT Press Club, Bhilai. Learned counsel contends that since the petitioner was publishing news against the commission of various offences in the Weekly "Chhattisgarh Prabhat" Newspaper, therefore, he is being falsely implicated in this case by these persons using the prosecutrix against him. He further submits that in fact on 29-3-2004 the petitioner was watching cricket match at about 12.30 p.m. on Television in his neighbor shop. In the meantime, Kumari Bai Sahu (complainant) come to his shop and called the petitioner. Thereafter, she abused the petitioner asking that why he published a news item against her. Saying all this, she had beaten the petitioner with her "Chappal". On all these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the FIR as well as the Criminal Proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel and have also perused the records filed alongwith the petition. It is an admitted position in this case that after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed and the case is pending before the JMFC. Durg in which the charges are still to be framed. It is at this stage, the petitioner has moved this Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.. 6. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be examined as to whether this Court can interfere at this stage under the inherent jurisdiction saved by law and the FIR as well as the pending criminal proceedings should be quashed or not. In this regard a decision of the Full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court (Vinod Kumar Sethi and others Vs. State of Punjab and another) is referable. It has been laid by Their Lordships that though the High Court would have inherent jurisdiction to quash the investigative process in a proper case, it does not mean that this power is to be exercised indiscriminately. State of Punjab and another) is referable. It has been laid by Their Lordships that though the High Court would have inherent jurisdiction to quash the investigative process in a proper case, it does not mean that this power is to be exercised indiscriminately. The requisite preconditions for the exercise of the power must be satisfied. Their Lordships reiterated that there is no blanket bar against the quashing of a first information report and the consequent investigation (even before a charge-sheet is filed in Court), provided that the requisite pre-conditions formulated for the exercise of the powers stand satisfied. The conditions which have been briefly summarized are as under (see para 20 of the judgment) : (i) when the first information report, even if accepted as true. discloses no reasonable suspicion of the commission of a cognizable offence; (ii) when the materials subsequently collected in the course of an investigation further disclose no such cognizable offence at all; (iii) when the continuation of such investigation would amount to an abuse of power by the police thus necessitating interference in the ends of justice; and (iv) that even if the first information report or its subsequent investigation purports to raise a suspicion of a cognizable offence, the High Court can still quash if it is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised mala fide. 7. When the case in hand is examined with the above view, this Court does not find any reason either to quash the first information report or to quash the criminal proceedings filed against the petitioner. The first information report is self speaking and if the same is accepted as true it clearly discloses the commission of the offence mentioned therein. Not only this the materials subsequently collected during the course of investigation also support the commission of the aforesaid offences. There is no reason with the court to interfere at this stage saying that either the first information report or the charge sheet is an out-come of mala fide and no further proceedings are required to be drawn in this case. The prosecution is still to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts before the competent court and the stage of analyzing and examining the truthfulness of the evidence has not come so far. The prosecution is still to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts before the competent court and the stage of analyzing and examining the truthfulness of the evidence has not come so far. It would be premature on the part of this court if the entire story of prosecution is thrown aside saying to be false and malicious. 8. Coming to the plea of the petitioner, at this stage, this Court can only say that this is not the proper stage to look into the aforesaid plea and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court are not to be exercised on such an occasion. In the opinion of this Court, a matter which is to be finalized on completion of an enquiry or trial cannot be finalized at a pre trial stage exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. After examining the records, this Court finds no merit in the petition for interfering at this stage and the petition is required to be dismissed at the admission stage itself even without notice to the other side. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. 10. Consequently, M.Cr.P. 331912004 for stay and I.A. No. 4580/2004 for urgent hearing stand disposed of. Petition Dismissed.