Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 238 (RAJ)

Sanju bai v. State of Rajasthan

2009-01-27

BHANWAROO KHAN

body2009
JUDGMENT Bhanwaroo Khan , J. - The petitioner Sanju Bai has filed this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. No. 722/2008 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Baran for offence under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. registered on the basis of the Parcha Bayan of one Nakul.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the wife of Ritu Raj, sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of complainant Nakul. On 7.12.2008 as per the F.I.R., the petitioner poured kerosene on Kanchan Bai, mother-in-law and put her in fire. When the informant and Ritu Raj, husband of the petitioner came to save their mother they also taught fire and sustained burn injuries on their person. Since the kerosene, which was poured, fell down on the ground and caught fire, the petitioner also sustained burn injuries on her body. The allegation of pouring kerosene on Kanchan Bai by the petitioner has been levelled by all the inmates of the house whereas the petitioner has moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Baran levelling allegation that at the instigation of all the inmates of the house, her husband poured petrol on her and put fire but on her complaint, report was not lodged.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case diary.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case whereas she is still under treatment for the burn injuries sustained by her in the incident. Therefore, the F.I.R. against her deserves to be quashed.5. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand has opposed the petition and submitted that due to the burn injuries sustained by Kanchan Bai, Ritu Raj and complainant Nakul all the three persons have died. However, on a question put, to him as to why F.I.R. on the complaint sent by the petitioner was not registered, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a case has been registered on the basis of the report of the petitioner.6. By now it is well settled that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. every High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the &kid. By now it is well settled that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. every High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the &kid. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised; (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. While exercising the said power Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where entire facts are incomplete and hazy. Moreso, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Reference may be placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., (2007) 12 SCC 1 . 7. If the facts of the present case and the evidence collected by the police during investigation be taken into consideration in the light of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case referred to above, it is clear that no case for quashing the F.I.R. is made out at this stage. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it proper to comment upon the merits of the case as it may affect the case of either of the parties. Suffice it to observe that a perusal of the case diary reveals that it was only the petitioner who is prima facie responsible for the death of three persons.8. In the result, I find no ground to quash the F.I.R. and to interfere in the investigation of the case. Suffice it to observe that a perusal of the case diary reveals that it was only the petitioner who is prima facie responsible for the death of three persons.8. In the result, I find no ground to quash the F.I.R. and to interfere in the investigation of the case. This criminal misc. petition fails and is, hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. *******