Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1306 (RAJ)

Roop Kishore v. State of Rajasthan

2014-07-02

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. No. 14/2013 pertaining to Police Station Sadar Bikaner, District Bikaner. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. do not constitute a prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 209 I.P.C. It is also contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have filed a suit for specific performance of contract in the Civil Court on the strength of an agreement to sell executed by one Shanti Das Binnani and the same is pending before the Civil Court. It is further contended that despite pendency of civil suit filed by the petitioners, the complainant being a power of attorney holder of Shanti Das Binnani has filed this false F.I.R. alleging preparation of forge agreement to sell dated 27.8.2009. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that when the agreement to sell in question is subject matter of civil litigation, no criminal prosecution can be launched against the petitioners in respect of the said agreement to sell. On the strength of these arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. 3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report prepared by the S.H.O., Police Station Sadar, Bikaner dated 6.3.2014 and has argued that the police after thorough investigation has found that the petitioners have prepared a forged agreement to sell purported to be executed by the Shanti Das Binnani with intention to grab the piece of land belonging to Shanti Das Binnani. It is also argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the original agreement to sell was not produced by the petitioners during the course of investigation or before the Civil Court and the police after thorough investigation found prima facie case against the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of this criminal misc. petition. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. The learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of this criminal misc. petition. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R. 5. The 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 an 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. (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. (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 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 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." 6. In a later decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr. reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has reiterated the above principle. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the impugned F.I.R, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. do constitute prima facie case against the petitioners. At this state, it cannot be concluded that the impugned F.I.R. is filed against the petitioners by levelling false allegations. The petitioners have failed to make out a case for quashing the impugned F.I.R. 8. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition. The same is hereby dismissed. At this state, it cannot be concluded that the impugned F.I.R. is filed against the petitioners by levelling false allegations. The petitioners have failed to make out a case for quashing the impugned F.I.R. 8. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition. The same is hereby dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******