Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 536 (GUJ)

Dilipsingh Pravinsingh Rana v. State of Gujarat

2009-08-04

D.H.WAGHELA

body2009
JUDGMENT : D.H. Waghela, J. Learned counsel, appearing on both sides, were heard in extenso and, by their joint request, the petition was taken up for final disposal, since the other elaborate proceedings for vacating the ad-interim relief, were withdrawn and terminated today. 2. The petitioner has invoked provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the complaint registered as I-C.R. No. 175 of 2009 at Pradhuman Nagar Police Station, Rajkot, for the offences punishable under Sections 385 and 506(2) read with Section 114 of IPC. The complaint is addressed to the Police Commissioner of Rajkot and, in substance, alleges threat to the person and property of the complainant at the hands of the petitioner and several other persons, who are alleged to be anti-social elements. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner as well as other persons, alleged to be involved in serious dispute related to properties, have the record of harassing others and being tried for other criminal offences. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Baheti, appearing for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the F.I.R. itself revealed dispute of civil nature related to property, in respect of which civil suits were going on since fifteen years and the complaint was filed with the mala fide motive of pressurising the petitioner into submission. He further submitted that the complainant is a very influential person and having friends in the police department, due to which, the petitioner was likely to be put to unnecessary harassment and may as well be arrested without even a prima facie case against him being revealed in the complaint. 4. Learned A.P.P., Ms. Patel submitted, on instructions, that even before the investigation was stayed by order dated 20.06.2009 of this Court granting ad-interim relief, the investigation was entrusted to and supervised by higher officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police in view of the seriousness of the allegations. She also submitted that the complaint was required to be fully and properly investigated and investigating agency would neither unnecessarily harass or arrest any person nor would spare any person from proper investigation. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. Adeshra, appearing for the respondent-complainant, submitted that the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 385, 506(2) and 114 of IPC were clearly made out in the complaint and the complainant was particularly vulnerable against such threats and possible danger to his person and property. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. Adeshra, appearing for the respondent-complainant, submitted that the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 385, 506(2) and 114 of IPC were clearly made out in the complaint and the complainant was particularly vulnerable against such threats and possible danger to his person and property. He also submitted that the complainant did not have any reason or mala fide intention to implicate the petitioner or any other person at this stage, unless he had genuine apprehensions after receiving by telephone persistent threats related to the property in dispute at Rajkot. 6. It was seen from bare reading of the complaint that the complainant has mentioned the time and place of receiving the telephone and the threat of grievous hurt. It also comes out clearly from the allegations that the threats were alleged to have been issued in relation to the property, wherein the complainant has interests and there are allegations of previous arrests of the accused persons which could inspire genuine apprehensions. Therefore, there is no substance in the argument that even a prima facie case is not made out in the allegations contained in the complaint. The allegation of the petitioner that the complaint is not made bona fide also could not be substantiated either by any facts or even any averment in the petition. Instead, learned counsel Mr. Baheti, appearing for the petitioner, submitted and stated, on instruction, that the petitioner was prepared to assure the complainant and file affidavit in the Court to say that the petitioner would not indulge in any such activity in future against the complainant. Such offer was not acceptable to either learned counsel for the complainant or learned A.P.P. on the basis that several other accused persons were alleged to be involved and, if the allegations in the complaint were true, the offences require serious investigation and prosecution. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Baheti has relied upon judgment of the Bombay High Court in Sanjay Pandey v. Chhaganlal J. Jain and ors. [2001 Cri.L.J. 2127], and judgments of the Supreme Court in Naresh Kavarchand Khatri v. State of Gujarat and anr. [ (2008) 8 SCC 300 ], in Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2008 Cri.L.J. 3944] and Baijnath Jha v. Sita Ram and anr. [ (2008) 8 SCC 77 ]. [2001 Cri.L.J. 2127], and judgments of the Supreme Court in Naresh Kavarchand Khatri v. State of Gujarat and anr. [ (2008) 8 SCC 300 ], in Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2008 Cri.L.J. 3944] and Baijnath Jha v. Sita Ram and anr. [ (2008) 8 SCC 77 ]. All the judgments reiterate the principles evolved for interference by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. According to recent judgment of the Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Aravapally Venkanna [ AIR 2009 SC 1863 ], Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has clearly held that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code 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. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. It is further observed that, whether the material already in existence or to be collected during investigation would be sufficient for holding the concerned accused persons guilty has to be considered at the time of trial. At the time of framing the charge it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out. At this stage also, evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. That being so, the interference, at the threshold, with the F.I.R. is to be in very exceptional circumstances as held in R.P.Kapur's case [ AIR 1960 SC 866 ]. A note of caution is sounded earlier in Som Mittal's case [2008 AIR SCW 1640], wherein Hon'ble the Chief Justice speaking for Three Judge Bench observed that power under Section 482 should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice. 8. 8. In view of the facts and allegations in the complaint and the legal dicta applicable in the facts of the case, the present petition is required to be dismissed for proper and prompt investigation. Therefore, the petition is dismissed, notice is discharged and ad-interim relief granted earlier is vacated with no order as to costs. 9. Upon dictation of this judgment in the open court, learned counsel, Mr. Baheti, has requested for staying the operation of the above order for a period of fifteen days for approaching the higher forum. There being no justification for granting such relief, the request is rejected. Petition dismissed.