Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 426 (RAJ)

Narain Das v. State of Rajasthan

2014-02-10

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the F.I.R. No. 89/2013 dated 3.3.2013 of Police Station Sadar, District Bikaner, for the offence under Sections 353, 332, 382 of I.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the cases are that on 3.3.2013 at about 4.00 P.M. the respondent No. 2-Kundanmal Bohra, posted as Commercial Tax Officer at Bikaner has filed a complaint at Police Station Sadar, District Bikaner, and alleged that on 2.3.2013, in pursuance of the order passed by the higher authority of Commercial Tax Department, he along with survey team of the Commercial Tax Department has reached at the shop of Rajkumar Sindhi for conducting survey. When survey team has concluded its survey and asked Rajkumar Sindhi to put his signatures on the survey report, he refused to do so and at that time a white coo Fortuner car stopped in front of the shop and suddenly Narayan Das Tulsiyani came out from the said car and entered into the shop, and started shouting on the survey team and also pushed them and threatened them. Thereafter, he snatched survey report and ran away from there. It is also alleged that when they started throwing the things in the shop, which were laying near the shutter of shop, members of the survey team came out from the shop and then, they have immediately shut down the shop and got it locked through Rajkumar Sindhi and thereafter, left from there. 3. On receiving this report the police has filed F.I.R. in question against the petitioners and started investigation. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners while assailing the F.I.R. has contended that the respondent No. 2 has lodged a false F.I.R. against the petitioners. It is also contended that the F.I.R. is nothing but out come of litigation instituted by the petitioners against the authorities of the Commercial Tax Department by way of writ petition before this Court, wherein this Court while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioners has dismissed the earlier orders passed by the authorities and directed them to pass fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also attempted to demonstrate that the survey proceedings conducted by the department were also not in accordance with law. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also attempted to demonstrate that the survey proceedings conducted by the department were also not in accordance with law. 5. On the strength of the above arguments learned Counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing the F.I.R. in question. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that a bare reading of the F.I.R. in question clearly reveals prima facie case against the petitioners and, therefore, no interference is called for while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the F.I.R. in question. 8. 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 extraordinary 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. (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 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 a 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 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." 9. 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. 10. 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. 10. 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. At this stage it cannot be said that the respondent No. 2 has lodged F.I.R. against the petitioners due to mala fides. 11. 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 F.I.R. in question. 12. Hence, there is no force in this Criminal Misc. Petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******