Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1620 (RAJ)

Asha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2011-08-05

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2011
Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 164/2011, registered at Police Station Sarwar, District Ajmer, for offences under Sections 143, 341, 332, and 353 IPC. 2. The facts of the case are that two of the petitioner's nieces were married to two of the complainant's sons. Since the girls were minor, although their marriage was solemnized, but the "Gauna" ceremony was yet to be performed. According to the petitioner, the complainant, lodged a false report on 17.6.2011 at Police Station Sarwar, in order to teach the petitioners a lesson. The complainant claimed that he is the local "Patwari." On 17.6.2011, around 8.30 PM, when a governmental function was over, he was carrying the official record in his bag for depositing the documents in the Patwar House. While he was on his way, the petitioners intentionally assaulted him, took away some documents, and Rs. 500/-. On the basis of said report, a formal FIR, FIR No. 164/2011 was chalked out. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since the petitioners were reluctant to send their minor daughters to their in-laws, the complainant, having animosity, has lodged the present FIR. Secondly, on 17.6.2011, the complainant and other had come to the house of petitioners, and had assaulted the mother of petitioner Asha Ram. They also misbehaved with the other ladies of the family. Despite the fact that the petitioners went to lodge a report with regard to said incident, the police refused to register the case. Therefore, on 18.6.2011, the petitioners had no option, but to file a criminal complaint in the court. However, in the meanwhile, the complainant has lodged this false report against the petitioners. According to learned counsel the falsity of the FIR is apparent from the fact that at the relevant time, the complainant cannot be said to be "discharging official duty". Thus, no offence under Section 332 and 353 IPC is made out. Hence, the FIR should be interfered with. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the material available on record. 5. As far as, the first contention of the learned counsel is concerned, the issue whether the FIR was lodged as a counter-blast to the incident, allegedly occurred at the house of petitioners, this aspect needs to be investigated by the police. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the material available on record. 5. As far as, the first contention of the learned counsel is concerned, the issue whether the FIR was lodged as a counter-blast to the incident, allegedly occurred at the house of petitioners, this aspect needs to be investigated by the police. Thus at the initial stage the said contention cannot be accepted. 6. Sections 332 and 353 IPC read as under:- 332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty- Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 7. A bare perusal of these provisions clearly show that they deal with act of an offender who assaults or uses criminal force to deter a public servant while he is discharging his duty. According to the complainant, he happends to be the Patwari of the area; according to him, there was an official function in the village. When the function was over, he gathered the official documents and proceeded to the Patwar House for depositing the same in the office. While he was on the way to the office, allegedly he was assaulted by the petitioners. When the function was over, he gathered the official documents and proceeded to the Patwar House for depositing the same in the office. While he was on the way to the office, allegedly he was assaulted by the petitioners. Since safely depositing the documents in the office is an official duty, since the complainant was acting in his capacity of Patwari, and was proceeding to his office, obviously, he was "discharging a official duty." According to the complainant, he was assaulted by the petitioners while he was on the way to his office; clearly, prima facie, the offence under Sections 332 and 353 IPC are made out. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel cannot be accepted that at 8.30 PM, the complainant was not "discharging official duty." 8. It is, indeed, trite to state that the jurisdiction of this court in quashing FIR is extremely limited one. Repeatedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the investigation is the realm of the police; ordinarily the court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction for interfering with investigation. In fact, the Apex Court is of the opinion that the police must be given a free hand to investigate a case, rather than to be interfered by the Court. Moreover, in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992) 1 Supp. SCC 335) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that if, prima facie, a case is made out in the FIR, then the FIR should not be interfered with. 9. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the misc. petition; the same being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed. 10. However, by way of abandon caution, it is made clear that the observations, made herein above, shall not influence the mind of the Investigating Officer or the learned trial Court. They shall applying their mind judiciously, objectively, and strictly in accordance with law.