Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1596 (JHR)

Surendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2016-11-24

S.N.PATHAK

body2016
ORDER : 1. Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of First Information Report dated 10.05.2015 Along with entire criminal proceeding which has been lodged against the petitioner under Sections 376(C), 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in connection with Gawan P.S. Case No.52 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No.1414 of 2015. 2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the informant Radha Devi lodged an F.I.R. before the police on 10.05.2015 with the allegation that on 10.05.2015 at about 12.30 p.m. the petitioner came to her house and started abusing her after and also abused her after taking her caste name and subsequently forcibly pulled her inside the house and tried to molest her. When the informant and her children started shouting, the petitioner fled away. Upon such information Gawan P.S. Case No.52 of 2015 was instituted against the accused persons. 3. Assailing the continuation of the criminal proceeding, on the basis of the F.I.R. as bad in law as the petitioner nowhere involved in the alleged offence as narrated in the F.I.R. and the entire allegations are false and concocted, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are no evidences to attract Sections 376, 511 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of S.C./S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and offence does not come under the purview of said Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case due to grudge and animosity and from bare perusal of the F.I.R. it reveals that it is malice prosecution and as such the F.I.R. be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. submits that there is direct allegation of attempt of ravishment against the petitioner and the factum of abuse by caste name cannot be ruled out. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties and from the records of the case, the F.I.R., the criminal proceeding at this stage cannot be quashed. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mosiruddin Munshi v. Mohd. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties and from the records of the case, the F.I.R., the criminal proceeding at this stage cannot be quashed. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mosiruddin Munshi v. Mohd. Siraj; (2014) 14 SCC 29 in Para 6 held that : The legal position with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court for quashing the first informant report is now well settled. It is not necessary for us to delve deep there into as the propositions of the law have been stated by the Court in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta in the following terms:(SCC p.523, para 15) “15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are : (1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly, if the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue. 7. In another case Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan; (2014) 15 SCC 221 in Para 9 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that : “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 through 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 Cr PC the affected party could pursue its remedy against the report in accordance with law. Without a through 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 Cr PC the affected party could pursue its remedy against the report in accordance with law. Keeping in view the fact that the 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.” 8. As accumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, legal propositions and the factual aspects, this Court is not inclined to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding and as such the quashing application is, hereby, dismissed. Petition dismissed.