Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1233 (RAJ)

Nakul Virval v. State of Rajasthan

2014-05-27

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 F.I.R. No. 90/2014 dated 11.4.2014 pertaining to the Police Station, Gangapur, District Bhilwara for the offence under Sections 498A, 406 I.P.C. 2. The complainant-respondent No. 2, wife of the petitioner No. 1 filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur, While levelling certain allegations against the petitioners. The said complaint was forwarded to the Police Station for investigation under Section 156(5)d Cr.P.C. and on the basis of which, the impugned F.I.R. has been registered at Police Station, Gangapur, District Bhilwara. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent No. 2 has filed the complaint only with an intention to harass the petitioners because prior to the filing of the said complaint, the petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and after service of the notice of the said application, to counter the same, the respondent No. 2 has filed this complaint. It is contended that in fact the allegations levelled in the complaint are false and, therefore, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri) 426. 4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that from bare reading of the impugned F.I.R., it is clear that on basis of the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. prima facie case is made out against case is made out against the petitioners, therefore, no interference is called for. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned F.I.R. 6. In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing a 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 State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing a 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 Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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. (5) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that to 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. of 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." 7. In a later decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr., 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has reiterated the above principle. 8. In the instant case, after reading the contents of the F.I.R. 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. 9. 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 petitioner have failed to make out a case for quashing the F.I.R. in question. 10. Hence there is no force in this Criminal Misc. Petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******