Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1239 (PNJ)

Arvind v. State of Haryana

2014-09-02

ANITA CHAUDHRY

body2014
ORDER : The petitioner is brother-in-law of respondent No.2. He is seeking quashing of case FIR No. 715 dated 04.09.2013, under Sections 313, 323, 406 and 498-A read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station City Jind, District Jind, at the instance of respondent No.2. 2. The investigating agency investigated the matter and filed the challan against the petitioner and other accused only under Sections 323, 406 and 498-A read with Section 34, IPC. 3. The marriage of respondent No.2 Shalini was solemnized with Navneet on 12.10.2011. The allegations are that the accused were not happy with the dowry and harassed her. On account of the beatings, a miscarriage took place. The complainant was thrown out of her matrimonial home and her stridhan was misappropriated by the accused. 4. The FIR runs in number of pages and as the quashing has been sought by the petitioner only, his role needs to be examined. 5. As per allegations levelled by the complainant, whenever the petitioner used to visit Bahadurgarh, he passed bad remarks. Further, on 26.05.2013 the petitioner and his brother asked the complainant to leave the matrimonial home and on her refusal, they forcibly threw her out of the house. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are general in nature and they have roped all members of the family. It has further been contended that the petitioner is residing and pursuing his studies at Kurukshetra whereas the couple was residing at Bahadurgarh, thus he could not interfere in the married life of the couple. Reference has also been made to Annexure P-1, a news item showing that the complainant and her husband had been disowned by Smt. Krishna Devi, mother of the petitioner. 7. In the reply filed by the State and complainant, it has been averred that sufficient material was collected against the petitioner during investigation prima facie showing his involvement in the offence and therefore, he was rightly booked and final report was filed against him and other accused. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book carefully. 9. The Apex Court has laid broad guidelines in relation to exercise of powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book carefully. 9. The Apex Court has laid broad guidelines in relation to exercise of powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 383 : ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ), and it has been observed in clear words that where the allegations made in the complaint or FIR, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence and do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused or where it is found that the proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive or where the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and improbable, the Court would be within its power to quash the complaint/ FIR. However, the Apex Court further held 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 and 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 FIR or the complaint. 10. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon- ble Apex Court in the case of Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2014(4) Recent Apex Judgments (RAJ) 324 : ( AIR 2014 SC 2567 ) and held as under: ' A bare perusal of Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure makes it crystal clear that the object of exercise of power under this section is to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of justice. There are no hard and fast rules that can be laid down for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an exception, but not a rule of law. It is no doubt true that there can be no straight jacket formula nor defined parameters to enable a Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Courts have to be very circumspect while exercising jurisdiction Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. It is no doubt true that there can be no straight jacket formula nor defined parameters to enable a Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Courts have to be very circumspect while exercising jurisdiction Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. This Court in Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. and Ors., 2000 (3) SCC 269 : ( AIR 2000 SC 1869 ), has discussed at length about the scope and ambit while exercising power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and how cautious and careful the approach of the Courts should be. We deem it apt to extract the relevant portion from that judgment, which reads: Exercise of jurisdiction under inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge sheet quashed is an exception rather than rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution with the lodgment of First Information Report. The ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes it- s own course and the investigation ensures in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and it- s undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the Court on a perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the complaint or charge sheet on the fact of it does not constitute or disclose any offence alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situations as is required under the law. Frustrated litigants ought not to be indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness through a legal process and such an investigation ought not to be allowed to be continued since the same is opposed to the concept of justice, which is paramount. 12. This Court in plethora of judgments has laid down the guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. This Court in plethora of judgments has laid down the guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 : ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ), this Court has listed the categories of cases when the power Under Section 482 can be exercised by the Court. These principles or the guidelines were reiterated by this Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. 1996 (5) SCC 591 : ( AIR 1996 SC 2452 ); Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi : 1999 (3) SCC 259 : ( AIR 1999 SC 1216 ) and Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Anr. (2005) 1 SCC 122 : ( AIR 2005 SC 9 ). This Court in Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd., observed that: The power Under Section 482 of the Code should be used sparingly and with to prevent abuse of process of Court, but not to stifle legitimate prosecution. There can be no two opinions on this, but if it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuation of a prosecution would lead to abuse of process of Court, the power Under Section 482 of the Code must be exercised and proceedings must be quashed. Also see Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand, 2012 (12) SCC 72 . What emerges from the above judgments is that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the tests to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the case. The Courts have to see whether the continuation of the complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and whether continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage of justice or when the Court comes to a conclusion that quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice, then the Court can exercise the power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. While exercising the power under the provision, the Courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in the complaint whether prima facie discloses an offence or not, but it should not convert itself to that of a trial Court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact.' 11. While exercising the power under the provision, the Courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in the complaint whether prima facie discloses an offence or not, but it should not convert itself to that of a trial Court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact.' 11. When the facts of the case in hand are examined in the light of the legal position enumerated above, it is found that the present case does not fall under any of the categories. The case was registered after due enquiry conducted by the investigating agency. A perusal of the FIR shows that there are specific allegations against the petitioner about his involvement in the commission of offence. As per the allegations in the FIR, he passed bad remarks to the complainant and he along with his brother threw the complainant out of the matrimonial home. The grounds on which the quashing is sought can only be ascertained on the basis of evidence that would be adduced by the parties. The plea of alibi, if any or the fact that the couple were staying separately are pure questions of fact and can only be ascertained during the course of trial. This Court is not required to determine the disputed question of fact here. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the material produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. Hence, quashing of the FIR would not arise. 12. The petition is dismissed. However, whatever has been said above is without prejudice to the merits of the case of the petitioner before the trial Court. Since the petitioner is a student, he may approach the trial Court for his personal exemption, which would be sympathetically considered by it. Petition dismissed.