Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1349 (RAJ)

Ranjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2014-07-07

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition is filed by the petitioner with prayer to quash F.I.R. No. 38 dated 16.2.2014 pertaining to Police Station, Chunawadh, Sriganganagar for offence under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and the constable Jai Karan who alleged that he has identified accused persons is not known to him. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on the day of the incident, he was not present in the village and therefore, the Police has wrongly implicated the petitioner for commission of the crime as alleged in the F.I.R. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has informed this Court that the investigation in connection with the impugned F.I.R. is under progress and from whatever evidence collected by Police, prima facie, it is established that the petitioner was involved in the commission or the crime as alleged in the impugned F.I.R. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned F.I.R. 5. So far as contention of the petitioner that his name was not mention the F.I.R. is concerned, said contention of the petitioner is without merit because whether the petitioner is involved in the commission of crime can only ascertained after investigation by Police. At this stage, it can not be said even if name of the petitioner was not mentioned, he was not involved. 6. Other contention of the petitioner that Constable Jaikaran Singh is known to him and therefore, on the basis of his identification he can not implicated is concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor has informed the Constable Jaikaran Singh is Beat Constable of the village and is known to even villager. If a beat constable has identified persons accused in the impugned F.J.-said identification can not be disbelieved at this stage, particularly as the investigation is still going on. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lai & Ors, (1992) SCC (Cri.) 426 , examined power 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 the held as under:- "102. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lai & Ors, (1992) SCC (Cri.) 426 , examined power 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 the 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 enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercised 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 processor 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 cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by Police Officer 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 uncontroverted 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 cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by 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 proceedings 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 proceedings against the accused. (6) Were 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 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." 8. In a later decision in Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill Anr., (1995) SCC (Cri.) 1059 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the above principle. 9. From perusal of the F.I.R. concerned, it can not be said that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. do not constitute a prima facie offence. 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage it can not be said that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to make out a case for quashing of the F.I.R. 11. There is no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******