Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 844 (RAJ)

Kan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2004-05-26

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the present accused-petitioners on 7.10.2003 with the prayer that FIR No. 197/2003 dated 18.6.2003 registered at Police Station Bhadra, District Hanumangarh against them for the offence under section 420 Indian Penal Code be quashed. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : That non-petitioner No. 2 Mr. Bhanwarilal, who was Naib Tehsildar, Bhadra, lodged a report with Police Station, Bhadra on 18.6.2003 against present accused-petitioners inter alia stating that accused-petitioner-Kan Singh, by caste Sindhi, resident of Ward No. 3, Bhadra had obtained forged certificates of O.B.C. by producing wrong evidence with dishonest intention from him. It was further stated in the report that the certificates dated 16.7.2002, which were obtained fraudulently, were cancelled on 10.4.2003 by an order passed by the Naib Tehsildar and that order was passed on the basis of the Investigation Report dated 20.3.2003 of the Addl. Collector, Nohar. 3. On the basis of that report, police registered the case being FIR No. 197/2003 and started investigation. 4. Hence, the present petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the accused-petitioners for quashing the said FIR contending inter alia : (i) that they belong to Satia Sindhi caste and that caste is found in O.B.C. Category at Serial No. 47, and therefore, they submitted applications for obtaining O.B.C. Certificates from the competent authority alongwith requisite reports and after verification respondent No. 2, who was Tehsildar, issued certificates, hence it cannot be said that they have committed offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code. (ii) that the FIR in question itself does not disclose the offence of cheating, hence it should be quashed, and (iii) that the lodging of the FIR against accused-petitioners is because of political rivalry as accused-petitioner No. 3-Mst. Jasweer Kaur was elected Member of the Municipal Board, Bhadra after defeating Smt. Salman Bano, who lodged the complaint before the District Collector, Hanumangarh, where enquiry was conducted by the ADM in which negligence was also found of the clerk concerned as well as respondent No. 2, hence this FIR is outcome of political rivalry. It is, therefore, prayed that the FIR in question be quashed. 5. It is, therefore, prayed that the FIR in question be quashed. 5. On the other hand, this petition has been opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 inter alia stating that since the report was lodged on the basis of a preliminary enquiry conducted by the ADM, there was a basis for it, therefore, it should not be quashed and furthermore since a considerable progress has been made in the investigation of the case at police level, therefore, now it would not be proper to quash the proceedings at this stage, hence the petition be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the case diary. 7. The legal position on the subject is very much clear from the various authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of State of Bihar and Ann v. Murad Ali Khan reported in (1988) 4 SCC 655 , it has been held that jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. It has been held that at an initial stage a Court should not embark upon the enquiry as to whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. Again in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power of quashing criminal proceedings must be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. It has been held that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR of the complainant. It has been held that the extra-ordinary-or inherent powers did not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in later decision in Mahavir Prasad Gupta (Shri) and anr. v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors., 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 765 has further held-that undoubtedly there could be interference in rarest of rare cases. Investigation is the province of the police whereas enquiry and trial are within the powers of the Court. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in later decision in Mahavir Prasad Gupta (Shri) and anr. v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors., 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 765 has further held-that undoubtedly there could be interference in rarest of rare cases. Investigation is the province of the police whereas enquiry and trial are within the powers of the Court. In a case instituted on a police report the Court gets jurisdiction to try the offender only when the final report is filed and cognizance taken. Till then it is the duty of the police to collect materials by investigation and decide whether the materials are sufficient to charge-sheet the accused to stand trial. The Courts do not interfere in the statutory right of the police to investigate the matter where the first information report discloses. the commission of a cognizable offence. 9. Apart from this, the High Court will interfere with the investigation only if non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice. The Court is aware that there cannot be a blanket war against the complainant of the FIR at the investigation stage but this power should be exercised in rarest of rare cases. With the law laid down, the present case is being examined. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the case diary pertaining to the above FIR in question and it reveals that through a detailed report dated 3.1.2004, the C.O. Nohar came to the conclusion that a prima facie case for offence under sections 420, 468, 471 and 474 was found proved against the accused-petitioners and thus he submitted the file before the Superintendent of Police, who made some queries in respect of the investigation and since the file in question was called by the Public Prosecutor in the High Court, therefore, the progress in the police diary since 12.1.2004 remained unattended. 11. In my considered opinion, after considering the above legal position when investigation has reached at the final stage, therefore, to quash the FIR at that stage would be nothing but the abuse of the process of the Court and interference with the statutory right of the police, which is not permissible under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code The argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners cannot be appreciated at this stage. The Court would not embark upon any enquiry in a case where the first information report discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, to find whether some person was actually involved in that case or not. This is the function purely entrusted to the Investigating Officer of Police and the Court will not assume the jurisdiction of the Investigation Officer to arrive at a conclusion and to give a finding which normally a police officer is supposed to give in terms of Section 169. The quashing of FIR and investigation after elaborate discussion of the merits of the case is not proper. While considering the question of quashing FIR on petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code pre judging the prosecution case by examining its weakness and contradiction is not permissible. Since in the present case, the Investigating Officer has come to the conclusion after investigation that the FIR discloses the commission of the cognizable offence and in such a position this Court would not assume the jurisdiction of an Investigating Officer to arrive at a different conclusion. 12. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, it can be held that it is not a fit case in which this Court should exercise extraordinary or inherent power under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash the FIR in question. The investigation is pending with the police and this Court should not interfere with the investigation of the case, as the power under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised in rarest of rare cases and this is not one of them. 13. Hence, there is no merit in this criminal misc. petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******