Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1817 (RAJ)

Ajay Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2006-05-22

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.By way of filing the present petition under Section 482, Cr.RC. the petitioners seek to assail the FIR, registered against them for alleged offences under Sections 307/ 341, 323, 324 and 34 I.PC., read with Section 3(1 )9x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to the extent of offence alleged under Section 3(1 )(x), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per the allegation for committing offence under Sections 3(1 )(x), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the allegation has been levelled against them that,which in itself, does not constitute any offence under the said Act under Section 3(1 )(x) because the complainant belongs to the cast of Majhabi Sikh whereas as per the allegation the petitioners used the word "chuhada" which his another caste under the Scheduled Castes, therefore, as per argument of learned counsel for the petitioners, using a cast term cannot be defined as an offence under Section 3(1 )9x). He argued that it cannot be presumed that the said word was used for insulting the complainant at a public place by the petitioners. He contended that the FIR requires to be quashed to the extent the prosecution has purposely inserted particular section in the FIR to disentitle and handicap the accused from the benefit of anticipatory bail. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Gemar Singh & Another v. State of Rajasthan & Another, reported in 2002(2) R.Cr.D. 401 (Raj.) . Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly contended that the whole FIR is aimed at maligning the prestige of the petitioners in the town. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that if the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose an offence, it is matter of investigation and it is settled law that in exercise of inherent power this Court should not cut short the investigation. Learned Public Prosecutor emphatically submitted that most of the investigation has already been made in this case and, moreover, the petitioners have also been arraigned for offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, therefore, at the stage, no interference by this Court in the investigation is warranted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor emphatically submitted that most of the investigation has already been made in this case and, moreover, the petitioners have also been arraigned for offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, therefore, at the stage, no interference by this Court in the investigation is warranted. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the contention of the petitioners that using a caste term does not constitute any offence cannot be accepted because the legislature has purposely enacted the said Act for the upliftment of the weaker sections and the validity of the provision has been upheld by the apex Court of the country. He contended that FIR cannot be quashed in piecemeal. He argued that it is for the investigating agency to arrive at the conclusion after thorough investigation whether offence is constituted or not and, therefore, it is not a fit case in which the Court is required to interfere at this stage. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the judgments cited by learned counsel for the parties. 6. In Gemar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra), the facts are entirely different. In that case, it has been held by this Court as follows : "The settled legal position is that where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused, the FIR can be quashed. Where the criminal proceedings is manifestly tainted with mala fides and/or maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and due to spite him on account of private and or personal grudge, the FIR can be quashed. The above test is not exhaustive and is illustrative only, as held in T.T. Anthony v. State of Kerala, JT 2001(5) SC 440 among others. In the matter at hand, in the FIR itself, it has not been stated that Govind Singh also called the complainant "dedh, chamar" etc. though he was with Ghemar Singh, who called the complainant with above terms and humiliated him. In such a situation, prima facie, no offence under SC/ST Act is made out against Govind Singh. The FIR in question, so far as Govind Singh is concerned, is quashed." 7. though he was with Ghemar Singh, who called the complainant with above terms and humiliated him. In such a situation, prima facie, no offence under SC/ST Act is made out against Govind Singh. The FIR in question, so far as Govind Singh is concerned, is quashed." 7. In view of the circumstance dealt in the cited case as above, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, at the stage of investigation, as also pointed out by the learned counsel for the State, this Court should not inference and rush to nip the proceedings in the bud. It must be borne in mind that till the report under Section 173, Cr.RC. is presented by the investigating agency the jurisdiction to enquire and investigate into the matter is exclusively vested in the investigating agency. At the stage of investigation, it is only in the rarest of rare cases that the Court may quash the FIR or complaint when it is abundantly clear that no case is at all made out for investigation or that the complaint is mala fide and vexatious.I do not find any case made out for interference. The petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******