Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1690 (RAJ)

Arjun Ram v. State

2005-06-20

SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK

body2005
Judgment S.P. Pathak, J.-Petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 10/05 of Police Station Sandwa, District Churu, lodged against him for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC and Section 3(ix)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that complainant Nanuram has filed the complaint addressed to the District Superintendent of Police, Churu inter-alia stating that petitioner Arjun Ram while working as Headmaster in officiating capacity of Govt. Secondary School, Tehandesar made changes in the record of the school and showed the attendance of his son short and on that ground sent back Admission Card of the Secondary Board Examination showing his name struck off from the school register and thereby tried to take away his right to appear in the examination. He has also stated that his son could appear in the examination only after getting an order from the civil Court at Sujangarh on 10.03.2005. It has also been stated that the petitioners son had contested the election of Panchyat in the month of January 2005 from Panchayat Samiti, Sujangarh and was a candidate from his area and as they had not supported him, the petitioner was having enmity with them and despite his son having 97% attendance the petitioner made changes in record and returned the admission card. It was further stated that as they belong to the Scheduled Caste, the petitioner addressed them as “Chudon” and threatened to see them, and has caused them mental and financial loss which amounts to a criminal act on the part of the petitioner. 3. On the aforesaid complaint, the office of District Superintendent of Police, Churu sent the complaint in original to the SHO, Sandwa to register a case and proceed with the investigation. The SHO, after registering the case, has conducted investigation in the matter. 4. Learned Counsel for petitioner contended that the prosecution has lodged a wholly false and frivolous case against the petitioner only to harass and humiliate him without there being any ingredients of the alleged offence. The SHO, after registering the case, has conducted investigation in the matter. 4. Learned Counsel for petitioner contended that the prosecution has lodged a wholly false and frivolous case against the petitioner only to harass and humiliate him without there being any ingredients of the alleged offence. He also contended that the petitioner struck off the name of complainants son as he had remained absent continuously for more than 10 days and did not attend the school despite information and thereby he has acted in exercise of his official duties without any favoritism. The further contention of the petitioner was that by perusal of FIR no offence can be said to be made out and that the FIR has been lodged with ulterior motive of the opposite party using the complainant as a tool. Learned Counsel referred to a decision of Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 355, and also cited decisions of this Court in Abhay & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (1) CrLR (Raj.) 332, and Gemar Singh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (2) CrLR (Raj) 1088. He also produced photocopy of relevant instructions enumerated in Rajasthan Shikhsa Sanhita (Part-I). 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioner knowing it fully well that the complainants son was having more than the required attendance for appearing in the examination, wrongly and in a mala fide manner, marked him absent continuously for 10 days so that the son of the complainant may not appear in the examination and this has been proved as on an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC alongwith the civil suit filed before the competent Court having jurisdiction in the matter, the Court passed an order in favour of the complainants son and the complainants son appeared in the examination. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the power under Section 482 of the CrPC requires to be exercised sparingly. He submitted that the investigation is in progress and it should not be stopped unless there are reasons to believe that absolutely a false criminal case has been lodged against the petitioner. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made before me and carefully perused the case diary placed before me. 7. He submitted that the investigation is in progress and it should not be stopped unless there are reasons to believe that absolutely a false criminal case has been lodged against the petitioner. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made before me and carefully perused the case diary placed before me. 7. A perusal of Section 482, CrPC clearly indicates that Court can interfere only when it is satisfied that it is necessary to give effect to an order passed by the Court or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The power possessed by the High Court under Section 482, CrPC 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 and the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 8. Now, it is to be seen as to whether the present case on the fact and circumstances and the guidelines of the Honble Supreme Court in Bhajanlals case is a fit case where power under Section 482, CrPC should be exercised to quash the First Information Report and to stop further investigation in the matter? 9. In the instant case, it is an admitted position as far as the facts are concerned that complainants son was having 97% attendance throughout the year and then regularly for a period of 10 days he has been marked absent in the month of February 2004. This was the period when it is said that the elections took place. It is not desirable to express any opinion on the evidence collected regarding any interpolation in the attendance register made by the petitioner, as has been alleged in the First Information Report against the petitioner, but it does not appear convincing to believe that the complainants son who was having 97% attendance throughout the year will remain absent continuously for a period of ten days without seeking leave which was otherwise not prohibited in any manner. It is pertinent to mention here that during those days most of the teachers of the Secondary School were engaged in election duty and sufficient teaching staff was not available in the most of the educational institutions. It is pertinent to mention here that during those days most of the teachers of the Secondary School were engaged in election duty and sufficient teaching staff was not available in the most of the educational institutions. Statements of the teachers have also been recorded which too go to show that injustice was done to the son of the complainant by recording absent in the attendance register. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was right in striking off the name of the complainants son from the attendance register on account of guidelines of the Board of Secondary Education which prescribe that if a student does not attend the school regularly for 10 days then in that event the name of the student can be struck off from the attendance register, is not sustainable in view of the fact that another Circular (Pariksha Prapatra 89 dated 26.02.2005) issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer clearly indicates that if a student is having 75% attendance in a year then he is entitled to appear in the examination. Thus, prima facie it appears that the complainants son in an arbitrary manner stood debarred by the act of the petitioner and in the above background it cannot be said that no cognizable offence was committed by the petitioner. So also, at this stage while the investigation is going on, it is not proper to express any opinion in the matter that as to whether any offence against the petitioner under the Atrocities Act is made out or not as it is for the investigating agency to come to a conclusion on the basis of evidence collected by it. 10. A perusal of Section 3(1)(ix) and (x) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 indicates that whoever not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe gives any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view is liable to be punished. In this connection, the investigating agency is required to examine as to whether on a public place and in public view some insult has been done to the complainant or his son as mentioned in the above section because the First Information Report does not disclose this aspect of the matter as to when and on what date and in whose presence the complainants son or the complainant was insulted and the word Chuda was spoken and it comes within the four corners of Section 3(ix), (x) of the Atrocities Act. It appears from the statements recorded by the police of some of the witnesses that the alleged incident is said to have taken place probably on 2nd of March 2005 in the school when complainant alongwith his son and his brother met the accused-petitioner in the school. But this important fact has not been mentioned in the First Information Report. It further appears from the investigation done uptil now that a civil suit was also filed and the complainant was in regular contact of the advocates then what was the reason for enormous delay in lodging the complaint regarding incident dated 2nd of March 2005 before the S.P., Churu on 17.03.2005. All the material collected during investigation is required to be taken proper care by the investigating agency while recording their final conclusion as to whether the offence is made out under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act or the provisions of the Act are being mis-utilized. It shall be premature for the Court to record its opinion and to suggest that a particular offence is made out or not as it is in the purview of the investigating agency to decide after taking into consideration the collected material during the course of investigation. 11. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no case under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC has been made out in the present case, prima facie appears to be weighty. In this regard, the investigating agency is required to thoroughly examine the provisions and ingredients of above sections of IPC and after taking into consideration the evidence collected uptil now and if any to be collected to draw a conclusion. 12. In this regard, the investigating agency is required to thoroughly examine the provisions and ingredients of above sections of IPC and after taking into consideration the evidence collected uptil now and if any to be collected to draw a conclusion. 12. In the authority relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner i.e. Bhajanlals case (Supra), the Honble Apex Court while considering various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure observed that when prima facie no case is made out and the prosecution case is absolutely baseless then as indicated in the guidelines of the Apex Court, FIR can be quashed. In that case also the investigation was in progress and it was considered to be a premature stage for the purposes of quashing the FIR. In the instant case also, a prayer has been made to quash FIR No. 10/2005 of the Police Station, Sandwa, District Churu. In my considered opinion, when the investigation is in progress and it has not yet been concluded, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider it in the interest of justice to stop the investigation by quashing the FIR as prayed in the petition. 13. It may also be observed here that whatever I have expressed hereinabove would not in any way have binding effect on the investigating agency in drawing conclusion on the basis of collected material. It is for the investigating agency to consider the entire matter in proper perspective taking into consideration the material which has already been collected and which they may collect further in investigation. 14. In view of foregoing discussions, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above and further that the investigation is in progress, I do not want to interfere in the investigation in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482, CrPC The petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the petition stands dismissed.