Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1190 (RAJ)

Gokal v. State of Rajasthan

2014-05-21

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.49/2014 dated 11.02.2014 of Police Station, Aspur, District Dungarpur, for offence punishable under Sections 143, 447, 393, 323, 354 and 149 IPC. 2. In the instant case the respondent No.2 filed a complaint in the Police Station, Aspur, District Dungarpur, on the basis of which the impugned FIR is registered against the petitioners for aforesaid offences, with the allegations that a piece of land was sold by the petitioner No.1 to father-in-law of the respondent No.2 through agreement on 25.04.1980 and since then they were having possession on the said land. It is alleged that on 10.02.2014, the petitioner along with co-accused persons came to the said land and started levelling the said land by JCB and when the respondent No.2 along with her husband tried to stop them all the petitioners stated beating them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that on 10.02.2014, the petitioner along with his family members was cleaning the said piece of land and the complainant-respondent No.2 along with her husband came to the site and started quarrelling and beating the petitioner No.6 and started abusing by bad words and on her shouting, all the other co-accused came there. The petitioner No.6 approached the police station but her FIR was not lodged, therefore, the petitioner No.6 filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Aspur, District Dungarpur on 12.02.2014 but till date FIR is not registered. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2 never supplied or shown the copy of the sale agreement, wherein it is mentioned that the land in question was sold by the petitioner No.1 to father-in-law of the respondent No.2. It is further contended that in the Jamabandi of Samwat 2069 the land in question is recorded in the name of the petitioner No.1 as khatedar and, therefore, the FIR may kindly be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that a bare reading of the FIR in question constitutes prima facie case against the petitioners and, therefore, no interference is called for while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the FIR in question. 6. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that a bare reading of the FIR in question constitutes prima facie case against the petitioners and, therefore, no interference is called for while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the FIR in question. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing First Information Report lodged in any police station while exercising the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has held as under:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognisable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognisable offence but constitute only a non-cognisable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." In a later decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr. reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has reiterated the above principle. 7. In the instant case, after reading the contents of the FIR in question, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 8. reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has reiterated the above principle. 7. In the instant case, after reading the contents of the FIR in question, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 8. In such circumstances, in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred cases, this Court does not find any merit in this Criminal Misc. Petition as the petitioners have failed to make out a case for quashing the FIR in question. 9. Hence there is no force in this Criminal Misc. Petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******