Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1249 (RAJ)

Dinesh Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2013-07-11

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-petitioner, Dinesh Meena has preferred this petition for quashing of FIR No. 398/2012, registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, for the offences under Sections 453 and 380 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Mr. Jagmohan Meena, the complainant-respondent No. 2, had lodged a report before the Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur on 20.07.2012, wherein he had claimed that he is the owner of Plot No. 21, Jai Ambey Colony, Teelawala Jagatpura, Jaipur. According to him, about five years ago he had constructed a single room and a boundary wall with a gate. He had also kept certain goods inside the room. Occasionally, he went to the plot to look after its safety. On 20.07.2012, when he reached the plot along with his friend, Babulal, he saw that the main gate of the plot was open and five to seven persons were standing near the main gate. When he went inside the plot, he realised that the lock of the room was broken, and the goods were missing. When he asked the persons standing at the gate as to who they were, one of them told him that he is Dinesh Meena (the petitioner before this Court). He also informed the complainant that it is he who had broken the lock, and taken away and sold the goods. Dinesh Meena also told him that the complainant can do whatever he likes, but he is not going to vacate the plot. It is on the basis of this report that a formal FIR, as mentioned above, for the offences aforementioned, was chalked out. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, the case is basically of a civil nature as the Plot No. 21 has been sold by the Khatedar to the society and the society has sold it to two different persons. Already there is a civil suit between the buyer of the plot and the Khatedar, which is pending. The complainant claims that he has bought the plot and has been threatening the petitioner to vacate the said plot. Therefore, the complainant is abusing the process of law in order to compel the petitioner to vacate the plot. 4. Secondly, the petitioner has kept an elderly lady as a tenant in the room. The complainant claims that he has bought the plot and has been threatening the petitioner to vacate the said plot. Therefore, the complainant is abusing the process of law in order to compel the petitioner to vacate the plot. 4. Secondly, the petitioner has kept an elderly lady as a tenant in the room. Even she has been made a co-accused person in the present case. According to the learned counsel, in case the petitioner wanted to illegally encroach upon the complainant's plot, obviously he would not have sought the help of an elderly woman. Thus, this fact clearly proves that the complainant is trying to abuse the process of law. 5. Thirdly, the FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive in order to compel the petitioner to vacate the plot. 6. Lastly, even earlier when Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar had lodged an FIR against Laxmi Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, dealing with the same plot, in the said FIR, namely FIR No. 211/2010 registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, the police had given a negative F.R. Thus, the fate of the present FIR would be the same. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned FIR as well as other documents attached with the petition. 8. It is, indeed, trite to state that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for interfering with the F.I.R. is extremely limited one. In catena of cases, the Apex Court has held that the Court should take the allegations made in the as un controverted facts for the time being. In case, the ingredients of the alleged offence are prima-facie made out, then the Court should not interfere with the F.I.R. For, investigation is the arena of the Police; the veracity of the F.I.R. can be investigated only by the Police. Therefore, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court should refrain from entering into the said arena. Furthermore, while exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., at the initial stage of investigation, the High Court is not permitted to consider the evidence, which may be produced by the defence during the course of the trial. At the initial stage, when the investigation is in progress, to enter into defence evidence would be a premature step. Furthermore, while exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., at the initial stage of investigation, the High Court is not permitted to consider the evidence, which may be produced by the defence during the course of the trial. At the initial stage, when the investigation is in progress, to enter into defence evidence would be a premature step. Therefore, the High Court should be weary of interfering with the investigation and in quashing the F.I.R. at the out set. 9. Whether the plot belongs to the petitioner or to the complainant, whether the petitioner is the trespasser or owner of the property, these are issues which cannot be commented by this Court at this initial stage. After all, these are issues which have to be investigated by the police. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel that he happens to be the bonafide purchaser of the plot, that he is not an encroacher, and that the complainant is trying to compel him to vacate the plot, such contentions cannot be accepted at this stage. 10. Moreover, even if there is a civil dispute that exists between the original purchaser of the plot and the Khatedar, that civil dispute does not buttress the case of the petitioner. For, neither the petitioner nor the complainant is a party in the said case. The complainant has a separate cause of action against the petitioner. Taking the allegations on its face value and taking them as un-controverted facts, prima-facie the ingredients of the offences are made out. Even if there was earlier an FIR lodged by Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar and even if the police has submitted a negative F.R. in the said FIR, again the said contention does not help the petitioner. 11. Suffice it to say at this moment that this Court expects the Investigating Officer to make objective and impartial investigation. The Investigating Officer is expected to collect the evidence from both the sides i.e, from the side of the complainant as well as from the side of the accused. If there are any documents which are in favour of the accused, the same should be taken by the Investigating Officer and the investigation should also be done in light of those documents. If there are any documents which are in favour of the accused, the same should be taken by the Investigating Officer and the investigation should also be done in light of those documents. It is only after gathering all the evidence that the Investigating Officer should decide whether to submit a negative F.R. in favour of the petitioner, or to submit a charge sheet against him. 12. With these directions, this petition is, hereby, disposed of. The stay application also stands disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******