Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1531 (RAJ)

Dropadi v. State of Rajasthan

2010-08-25

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner Smt. Dropadi has beseeched to quash the F.I.R. No. 215/2010 of Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh registered for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act. 2. Factual matrix of the case depict that one and a half year's prior to 20.5.2010, the petitioner Dropadi, Mahaveer and Mani Ram sanctioned Rs. 50,000/- to Bhateri, the wife of the complainant under Indira Gandhi Housing Scheme. It is alleged that the petitioner alongwith Mahaveer and Mani Ram hatched a conspiracy and sanctioned Rs. 50,000/- in the name of Guddi W/o Bhagirath, whereas this amount was required to be sanctioned to the complainant's wife Bhateri. One F.I.R. No. 84/2010 was lodged against the petitioner, Mahaveer and Maniram, wherein the police, after completion of investigation, filed the Final Report on the ground that loan of Rs. 25,000/- had been paid to Smt. Guddi and this amount was sanctioned in the name of Guddi under some confusion. The police gave Final Report on this ground that Guddi's husband Bhagirath did not want any action to be taken in the matter. That case was not properly investigated by the police and the grounds, on the basis of which the Final Report is found to have been given, are not found to be proper. The police is found to have investigated the case very casually. The conduct of police is thus deprecated. However, one another complaint was filed by Bhagirath, the husband of Bhateri Devi against Dropadi, Mahaveer and Mani Ram. 3. The facts, in nub, of this case are also similar in the sense that Bhateri Devi W/o Bhagirath was falling in the category of below poverty line. She was sanctioned an amount of Rs. 50,000/- by the then Sarpanch Kheda, Secretary and concerned Ward Panch under Indira Gandhi Housing Scheme. It is alleged that the amount was sanctioned to her, but this amount was embezzled by the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused persons namely Mahaveer and Mani Ram. On the complaint of Bhagirath S/o I-Iarkha Ram, the case was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate, Rawatsar, whereupon F.I.R. No. 215/2010 came to be registered, which is pending investigation. 4. On the complaint of Bhagirath S/o I-Iarkha Ram, the case was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate, Rawatsar, whereupon F.I.R. No. 215/2010 came to be registered, which is pending investigation. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the contents of First Information Report and the evidence collected so far by the Investigating Officer Shri Sita Ram Mishra, who is present in the Court. 5. It is well settled proposition of law that the F.I.R. can be quashed by the High Court invoking. the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. only when the contents/facts of the case do not constitute the commission of a cognizable offence. It is true that in the instant case, earlier one F.I.R. No. 84/2010 was registered by the police and Final Report was given therein after completion of investigation, but that matter related to the case of Guddi W/o Bhagirath, who was not falling in the category of below poverty line. In the instant case, Bhateri Devi W/o Bhagirath is the BPL card holder and Gram Panchayat, Kheda, sanctioned an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to Bhateri Devi under Indira Gandhi Mousing Scheme for construction of a house. It is alleged that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was embezzled by the petitioner in connivance with the other co- accused persons namely Mahaveer and Mani Ram. It is not a case, wherein the facts of the F.I.R. do not constitute the commission of a cognizable offence. Thus the investigation of the case is not required to be interfered with. The investigation of any criminal case is the exclusive domain of police as has been repeatedly observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in umpteen cases. 6. In the case of Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 758 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus : "18. The investigation of any criminal case is the exclusive domain of police as has been repeatedly observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in umpteen cases. 6. In the case of Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 758 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus : "18. We may observe that despite this Court consistently held in catena of decisions that inherent power of the High Court should not be exercised according to whims and caprice and it has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, we often come across the High Court exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a routine manner at its whims and caprice setting at naught the cognizance taken and the F.I.R. lodged at the threshold committing grave miscarriage of justice. While it is true that so long as the inherent power of Section 482 is in the Statute Book, exercise of such power is not impermissible but it must be noted that such power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, the sole aim of which is to secure the ends of justice. The power under Section 482 is not intended to scuttle justice at the threshold. 7. In view of above loud pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, the instant petition being bereft of any merits stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******