Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1778 (RAJ)

Sanoj Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan

2016-12-07

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner-accused Sanoj Kumawat has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 257/2015 registered at Police Station Nasirabad Sadar District Ajmer for offence punishable under Sections 379, 411, 120 IPC and Section 41, 42/77 of Rajasthan Forest Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.08.2015 complainant Ram Narayan son of Shri Ghasi Ram, SI, PS Sadar Nasirabad lodged a written report at Police Station Nasirabad bearing FIR No. 257/2015 for offence under Section 379, 411 and 120-B IPC wherein it was alleged that a car bearing No. RJ-27-TA-2414 was searched during nakabandi and sandal wood was found in the car in the possession of two persons named Jaheer Mohammed and Mohd. Shaheed who were not having valid licence or permission letter for carrying the said sandal wood. On asking they informed that they use to procure sandal wood from forest and supply it to various traders at Jaipur and presently they are going to supply it to petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no concerned with the alleged offence, he has been implicated in it falsely. Investigating Officer has already searched the premises of petitioner but nothing incriminating was found to connect him with the alleged offence mere furnishing name of petitioner by the co-accused, is no ground to implicate the petitioner in the alleged offence, therefore, the aforesaid FIR to the extent of petitioner may be quashed. 4. Per contra learned PP. Mr. Virendra Godara submits that IO Mr. Shankar Singh SI, PS Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer is present in person. On his instructions he submits that petitioner was named by co-accused on 5.08.2015 at the time of recovery thereafter on 06.08.2015 he furnished information under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. In pursuance of information, the house of petitioner was searched but nothing incriminating was found at her house. He submits that co-accused named the petitioner and in their information they furnished that they are going to supply this sandal wood to petitioner, therefore, he is accused for offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. 5. I have considered the submissions made at Bar. 6. In the matter of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. He submits that co-accused named the petitioner and in their information they furnished that they are going to supply this sandal wood to petitioner, therefore, he is accused for offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. 5. I have considered the submissions made at Bar. 6. In the matter of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., [1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335] the Hon'ble Supreme court have framed seven grounds on the basis of which the FIR can be quashed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para No. 105, observed as under:- "105. 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 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 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. 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. 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." 7. In the case in hand since no incriminating article was recovered from the conscious possession of petitioner and in pursuance of information submitted by co-accused no discovery was affected regarding any incriminating goods/sandal wood. Merely, on the basis of information submitted by co-accused that he is going to supply the sandal wood to petitioner is not sufficient to implicate the petitioner in the alleged offence without any corroborating evidence. Since more than a year has passed but except the information of co-accused there is nothing in the case diary to connect the present petitioner with the alleged offence, therefore, relying on the aforesaid Supreme Court's judgment, if the material available on record is taken into still no case is made out under Section 411 IPC or any other offence against the present petitioner, as nothing was recovered from his conscious possession. As such this misc. petition is allowed and to the extent of present petitioner, FIR No. 257/2015 for offence under Sections 379, 411, 120 IPC and Sections 41, 42/77 of Rajasthan Forest Act registered at Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer is quashed and set aside. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not effect the proceedings pending against other co-accused.