Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 471 (RAJ)

Mukna Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2014-02-13

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 FIR No.72/2012 dated 04.12.2012 of Police Station Kalyanpur, District Barmer, for offence under Sections 147, 323, 341, 427 and 452 IPC and 3(i)(x) SC/ST Act. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has informed this Court that the police has already concluded the investigation and found that the petitioners are guilty of committing the offences as alleged in the FIR in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the allegations levelled by the respondent No.2 in the FIR are false and are levelled at the instance of one Jairoopa Ram S/o Lala Ram. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that Jairoopa Ram has filed a civil suit against the petitioner No.1-Mukna Ram and petitioner No.2-Dhanna Ram in the court of District Judge, Balotra and on account of the pendency of the said civil suit the respondent No.2, who is working on the field of Jairoopa Ram, has filed this FIR. 4. On the strength of the above arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing the FIR in question. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that a bare reading of the FIR in question constitute prima facie case against the petitioners and, therefore, no interference is called for while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the FIR in question. 7. 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. 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 cognizable 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 uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR 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 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 FIR 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 FIR 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, S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.524/2013 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." 8. 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. 9. In the instant case, after reading the contents of the FIR 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 FIR against the petitioners due to malafide or at the instance of Jairoopa Ram S/o Lala Ram. 10. 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 FIR in question. 11. 10. 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 FIR in question. 11. Hence there is no force in this Criminal Misc. Petition the same is hereby dismissed.Stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******