Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1204 (RAJ)

Babi v. State of Rajasthan

2010-07-12

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR filed against the petitioners at Police Station Kalandari for offences under Sections 143, 323, 447 and 307, I.P.C. Following FIR was filed by the complainant against the petitioners : " ipkZ c;ku Jh panjke s/o vpykth tkfr ?kkaph mez 40 o"kZ is'kk [ksrh fuoklh uqu PS dkyUnzh gky tSj bykt CHC dkyUnzh ftyk fljksgh eqfrZck fnukad 6-5-10 le; % 3-05 PM us crk;k fd eSa esjs ifjokj lfgr xkao uqu esa jgrk gwa esjs Lo;a dk [kkrsnkjh [ksr ljgn uqu esa vk;k gqvk gSaA lksnkth tkrh ?kkaph fuoklh uwu dk [ksr vk;k gqvk gSA esjs o cqVkjke ds vkil esa tehu dk fookn xr ,d lky ls pyk vk jgk gSA vkt fnukad 6-5-10 dks eSa o esjk NksVk HkkbZ x;kjke nksuksa gekjk Vs~DVj ysdj gekjs [ksr esa [kM+kbZ djus gsrq x;s Fks rFkk FkksM+h [kM+kbZ dh Fkh brus esa Jh cqVkjke] pqukjke] eqnkjke filjku lksnkth ?kkaph fuoklh uqu o pqukjke dh iRuh] cqVkjke dh iRuh gkFkksa esa ykfB;ka ysdj esjs [kkrsnkjh [ksr esa vukf/kd`r :i ls izos'k dj esjs dks o esjs HkkbZ x;kjke dks dgk fd ;gka [kM+kbZ D;ks dj jgs gks] dk dgdj cqVkjke us esjs flj esa ykBh dk okj fd;k] ftlls esa fups fxj x;k] rks pqukjke o eqikjke nksuksa us ykBh;ksa ls esjs nksuksa gkFkksa dh dksguh o Hkqtk ij ykBh dk okj fd;k rFkk cqVkjke o pqukjke dh iRuh us Fkkiks eqDdksa ls ekjihV dj esjs pksV igqpkbZ rFkk cqVk jke us esjs HkkbZ x;kjke ds flj esa ykBh dh pksV tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls ekjhA ekjihV ls esjs flj esa nksuksa gkFkksa dh Hkqtk ij] nksuksa iSjks ij txg&ctxg pksVsa yxh gS rFkk esjs HkkbZ x;kjke ds flj esa pksV yxh gSA ;g ?kVuk dkcfj;k gfjtu fuoklh uwu us ns[kh gS ftlus vkdj fcp cpko dj NqM+k;kA bu lHkh yksxksa us gkFkksa esa ykBh;k ysdj esjs [ksr esa vukf/kd`r :i ls izos'k dj esjs dks o esjs HkkbZ x;kjke dks tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls flj esa ykBh dh pksVsa ekjh gSA rFkk ?kVuk ds ckn iqfyl ekSds ij vkbZ o gekjs dks bZykt gsrq dkyUnzh lQk[kkuk ysdj vkbZA et:c ds ipkZ c;ku et:c ds dgs vuqlkj 'kCn c'kCn fy[ks tkdj i<+dj lquk;s lqu le> lgh gksuk ekudj vius vaxwBk fu'kku fd;sA " 3. In this case, earlier bail application was filed by the petitioners before learned Sessions Judge under Section 438, Cr.P.C. and the same was dismissed on 24.06.2010. Thereafter, application for anticipatory bail was filed before this Court and, that too, was rejected on 08.07.2010. The accused-petitioners, after dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C., have moved the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that registration of the FIR is complete abuse of the process of law. Further, it is submitted that the occurrence took place in the agriculture field of the petitioners and petitioners filed cross-FIR for the same occurrence. The petitioners are thus not disputing the occurrence but argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the occurrence took place in the agriculture field belonging to the petitioners, therefore, the registration of the FIR against the petitioners is totally unwarranted and false. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that no offence under Section 447, I.P.C. is made out and while deciding bail application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. it was not open for the learned Court below to discuss merit of the case. Therefore, this FIR may be quashed. 6. First of all, it is worthwhile to observe here that after application of mind the application filed by the petitioners for anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. was rejected on 08.07.2010 and, at the time of the rejection of the bail application, all the facts were taken into consideration. Mind was applied to the facts and circumstances of the case and it was found that it is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that said bail application was not dismissed on merit but it was withdrawn by the petitioners and, thereafter, all the documents were submitted before the investigating officer. However, now, it is argued that FIR itself is not tenable; meaning thereby, on the one hand, the petitioners are not disputing the occurrence but arguing that the occurrence took place in their field; and, on the other hand, contention of the petitioners is that the FIR itself is false. 8. However, now, it is argued that FIR itself is not tenable; meaning thereby, on the one hand, the petitioners are not disputing the occurrence but arguing that the occurrence took place in their field; and, on the other hand, contention of the petitioners is that the FIR itself is false. 8. As per language of Section 482, Cr.P.C., at the stage of registration of the FIR and upon perusal of the FIR, if it is revealed that there is ingredients of commission of offence and fact is not disputed with regard to the occurrence, therefore, in my opinion, it is matter of investigation and if, ultimately, upon conclusion of the investigation it is found that no offence is made out, FR may be given. But, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere so as to quash the FIR. More so, it is expected of the investigating officer that he will investigate the matter properly. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that bail application was dismissed as withdrawn, in fact, application was withdrawn because this Court was, at that time, not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, filing of this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. after dismissal of the bail application as withdrawn is abuse of process of law. 9. Accordingly, this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******