Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1015 (RAJ)

Godawari Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2016-07-19

P.K.LOHRA

body2016
ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. 1. All these criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are arising out of FIR No.5/2015 registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara and therefore, all are being heard together and decided by this common order. 2. In Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 1513/2016 and 1002/2016, accused-petitioners have craved for quashing of FIR, whereas in Criminal Misc. Petition No.1364/2016, the accused-petitioner has sought a direction for fair and impartial investigation in the matter. 3. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that respondent-complainant lodged a FIR at Police Station Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara, inter-alia, alleging therein that on 23rd of December 2014, accused-petitioners came to his office and threatened that they have prepared a spurious Will of Shri Dhanna Lal and, on the strength of the said Will, entire property of Shri Dhanna Lal shall be alienated to other persons. In the FIR, it is also alleged by the complainant that he was shown the forged Will and conveyed by the accused-persons that, on the strength of the said document, they will usurp his property. The FIR further reveals that accused-persons threatened the complainant with dire consequences if he would try to initiate any legal proceedings against them. In substance, the FIR contained allegation against the accused-persons for offence under Section 384 IPC. 4. While throwing challenge to the FIR, petitioners Smt. Godawari Devi and Balmukund have prayed for quashing the same in their respective petitions, whereas petitioner Om Prakash Birla has craved the relief for issuance of a direction to the prosecuting agency for conducting a fair and impartial investigation. 5. For seeking annulment of the FIR, petitioners have pleaded that entire FIR is ill-founded and continuance of investigation in the matter would be an abuse of process of the Court. Petitioner, Om Prakash Birla, in his petition has expressed serious doubts about fair and impartial investigation in the matter precisely by urging that complainant is a very rich and influential person, therefore, the investigation is likely to implicate the accused-petitioners in the matter without there being any prima facie culpability on their part. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. V.K. Mathur, submits that per se FIR is not disclosing commission of any cognisable offence by the accused-petitioners, therefore, it is a fit case wherein inherent powers are to be exercised for quashing the same. In the alternative, Mr. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. V.K. Mathur, submits that per se FIR is not disclosing commission of any cognisable offence by the accused-petitioners, therefore, it is a fit case wherein inherent powers are to be exercised for quashing the same. In the alternative, Mr. Mathur has urged that direction be issued to the prosecuting agency for conducting fair and impartial investigation in the matter to unearth the truth. In support of his arguments, Mr. Mathur has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. 2009 Cr.L.R. (SC) 746. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have urged, in unison, that a bare reading of FIR makes it abundantly clear that it is disclosing commission of cognisable offence by the accused-petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that apprehension of the petitioners about unfair and impartial investigation in the matter are wholly unfounded inasmuch as Investigating Officer has concluded investigation and filing of Final Report is in offing in near future. Learned Public Prosecutor has also urged that during investigation statements of witnesses have been recorded and Investigating Officer has made sincere endeavour to unearth the truth about the allegations contained in the FIR. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant submit that inherent powers of this Court are to be used very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases for quashing a criminal proceeding. It is also urged by learned Public Prosecutor that Court is not obliged in embarking upon an inquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. In support of his contentions, learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on a decision of Teeja Devi @ Triza Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2014) 15 SCC 221 . 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused impugned FIR and thoroughly scanned the case diary. 9. After perusal of the FIR, in my considered opinion, allegations against the accused-petitioners are clear and unequivocal and it is rather difficult to comprehend that allegations made therein are not disclosing commission of cognisable offence by the petitioners. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused impugned FIR and thoroughly scanned the case diary. 9. After perusal of the FIR, in my considered opinion, allegations against the accused-petitioners are clear and unequivocal and it is rather difficult to comprehend that allegations made therein are not disclosing commission of cognisable offence by the petitioners. A bare reading of FIR makes it abundantly clear that complainant has imputed a specific allegation against the accused persons that they have prepared a spurious Will of Shri Dhanna Lal and, on the strength of same, his property is to be alienated. The FIR further reveals that accused petitioners have threatened the complainant with dire consequences in the event of his taking recourse to law for initiating action against them. 10. In case of Md. Ibrahim (supra), Supreme Court, while considering a sale-deed by an incumbent pertaining to a property which was not belonging to him, has held that offence under Section 467 and 471 IPC is not made out. In the instant case, the facts are entirely different inasmuch as there is a specific allegation that accused persons have prepared a forged Will of Dhanna Lal for usurping his property and thereafter they have made an attempt to alienate the same as such judgment in Md. Ibrahim (supra) cannot render any assistance to the case of the petitioners. 11. In Teeja Devi (supra), on which learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance, the Court has taken note of the factual report submitted by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which High Court has quashed the FIR and taking into account the fact scenario issued directions to the prosecuting agency for conducting fair and impartial investigation. While setting aside the order passed by the High court, the Court held:- "9. We have no hesitation in holding that in the facts of the case, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the police investigation and quashing the FIR. This is not at all a rare case. Without a thorough investigation, it is not possible or proper to hold whether the allegations made by the complainant are true or not. Hence the investigation should have been allowed to continue so that on filing of the report under Section 173 CrPC the affected party could pursue its remedy against the report in accordance with law. Without a thorough investigation, it is not possible or proper to hold whether the allegations made by the complainant are true or not. Hence the investigation should have been allowed to continue so that on filing of the report under Section 173 CrPC the affected party could pursue its remedy against the report in accordance with law. Keeping in view the fact that criminal case was at the stage of investigation by the police the High Court was not justified in holding that the investigation of the impugned FIR is totally unwarranted and that the same would amount to gross abuse of the process of the court." 12. In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court has discussed the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. threadbare and analysed the power of High court to quash criminal proceedings. After considering the matter, in its entirety, the Court held: “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 FIR 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 FIR 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 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 FIR 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 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, 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 proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection an 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 FIR 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.” 13. As regard fair and impartial investigation in the matter, after perusal of the case diary and the investigation conducted so far by the Investigating Officer, I feel satisfied without any demure that Investigating Officer has acted in fair and impartial manner for unearthing the truth. Therefore, viewed from any angle I feel dissuaded to interfere in the matter and, accordingly, both the petitions for quashing FIR, namely, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 1513/2016 and 1002/2016 are dismissed. 14. The other petition for issuance of direction for fair and impartial investigation, after perusal of entire case diary, I do not feel it necessary and expedient to issue any direction to the Investigating Officer. Consequently petition for issuance of direction for fair and impartial investigation, namely, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1364/2016 is also dismissed. A copy of this order be placed in all these files.