Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 636 (JK)

Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. State & Ors.

2012-10-05

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
1. By the medium of this Petition, petitioners are seeking quashment of an FIR No. 284 of 2012 dated 21st July, 2012, registered with Police Station Gannur, Sonipat Haryana under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) on the grounds taken in the Writ Petition. 2. The Petition, on the face of it, is not maintainable for the following reasons; An FIR has been lodged at Police Station Gannur, Sonipat Haryana with the allegations that in the month of May, 2010, Madam Indira-accused No. 4 along with other accused-petitioners herein visited the School of informer at Khaidi Gujar, Tehsil Gannur, District Sonipat. Madam Indira-accused no. 4 introduced accused nos. 1 to 3-petitioners herein with the applicant/informer and had told him that they had come for admission of students for Junior Basic Training (for short J.B.T) in J&K State for Sessions 2009-2011 and demanded Rs. 40,000/- from each student. The informer was in contact with many aspirants and collected Rs. 40000/- each from 40 students and deposited Rs. 1.00 lac (rupees one lac) in HDFC Bank under Account No. 02711140038481 of accused no. 1 and Rs. 35,000/- in SBI Bank Account no. 0031051665251 out of the said amount and rest amount was paid in cash to accused nos. 1 to 4 by the applicant/informer and they assured the informer that the students would get admission in the said Course. The particulars/list of students is attached with the FIR. Further it is alleged that respondents managed to get forged Roll Number slips and Identity Cards of the students, sent to the applicant-informer by the accused. The photocopies of Roll Number Slips and Identity Cards are annexed with the FIR. 3. The police State of Haryana is conducting the investigation. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 are not conducting the investigation. It appears that they have been arrayed as a party in the array of respondents just to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court and to give a slip to law. It would be appropriate to reproduce Paragraphs 9(ii) & (iii) of the petition here under. (ii) That the respondent no. 2 has no authority under law to register the case and to go ahead with the investigation in FIR No. 284/2012 dated 21.07.2012 for offence u/s 420,467,468,471 and 506 of IPC. It would be appropriate to reproduce Paragraphs 9(ii) & (iii) of the petition here under. (ii) That the respondent no. 2 has no authority under law to register the case and to go ahead with the investigation in FIR No. 284/2012 dated 21.07.2012 for offence u/s 420,467,468,471 and 506 of IPC. It is submitted that no part of these offences have been committed at Gannur, Sanipat and under no circumstances those instances can be made basis for registering case against the petitioners at Gannur and investigating the same. (iii) That question in the instant case arises for consideration before this Hon'ble Court is that whether the investigation in FIR No. 284/2012 of Police Station Gannur, Sonipat, Haryana can continue when no part of cause of action has arisen at Gannur in view of Chapter-XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the entire allegation relate to incidents that allegedly happened at Jammu. In this regard, it is submitted that information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 Cr.P. C. is commonly known as the first information report (FIR) though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important document which sets the criminal law in motion and marks the investigation which ends up with formation of option under Section 169,170 Cr.P. C as the case may be and forwarding the Final Police Report under section 173 Cr. P. C to the competent Magistrate. It is submitted that from the perusal of above FIR it reveals that the gravamen of the allegations in the FIR No. 284 of 2012 of Police Station Gannur, Sonipat Haryana are the incidents of alleged forgery done at Jammu. Under such circumstances it is not known as to how the investigation or Trial in FIR could be conducted at Gannur. There is no justification with continuance of investigation in the FIR No. 284/2012 and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. Under such circumstances it is not known as to how the investigation or Trial in FIR could be conducted at Gannur. There is no justification with continuance of investigation in the FIR No. 284/2012 and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. The petitioners herein have made the following prayer in the petition: It, is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C and may be pleased to quash FIR No. 284/2012 dated 21.07.2012 registered with Police Station Gannur, Sonipat, Haryana and all the subsequent proceedings taken thereon so far as it pertains to the petitioners being illegal and misuse/abuse of process of law and without jurisdiction in view of section 3 and 4 of RFC and section 188 of Cr.P.C; with a further direction commanding the respondent no.2 to. 4 not to arrest the petitioners in the aforementioned FIR whereby a criminal case under Section 420/467/468/471/506 of IPC has been registered against the petitioners and some other persons illegally and arbitrarily; Any other appropriate order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 5. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR and no other relief is sought. Keeping in view the allegations contained in the FIR read with relief sought in the petition, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition and deserves to be dismissed. 6. Even otherwise no case is made out for quashing the FIR and investigation conducted. 7. It would be appropriate to reproduce Section 561-A Cr.P.C herein:- "561 -A. Saving of inherent power of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." This remedy can be invoked/pressed into service or may be exercised in the following circumstances:- i) To pass orders in order to give effect to an order passed under Cr.P.C; ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court; iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice; and iv) to prevent mis-carriage of justice. 8. The Apex Court in Som Mittal v. Govt. 8. The Apex Court in Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka, 2008 AIR SCW1003, and M.N. Ojha v. Alok Kumar Srivastav, AIR 2010 SC 201 , while laying down the tests, has held that the remedy under section 561-A Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C of Central Code) and inherent power should not be exercised by the Courts in a routine manner, rather has to be exercised sparingly, carefully with caution and in rarest of rare cases. 9. This Court also in a case, Mian Abdul Qayoom v. State & others, 561-A Cr.P.C, decided on 31.12.2010, reported in 2011 (1) JKJ 470 (HC), has held that the Courts should refrain from making prima facie decision at the infancy stage or in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy. 10. The power under section 561-A Cr.P.C. has to be exercised cautiously, carefully and sparingly and Court has not to function as a Court of appeal or revision. 11. The case of the petitioners does not fall in any of the said parameters. It is beaten law of the land that conducting of investigation cannot be scuttled away en-route. Applying the aforesaid tests, it can be safely said that the petitioners have failed to carve out a case. 12. Viewed thus, this Petition is dismissed in limine along with connected Cr.M.A.