Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1346 (HP)

Randheer Sharma v. State Of H. P.

2017-12-05

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Through, the instant petition cast under the provisions, of, Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.), the petitioner prays for quashing of FIR No. 57, of 17.09.2013, registered in Police Station Swarghat, District Bilaspur, H.P., under Sections 143, 430, 447, 448, 120-B of the IPC and Sections 3(1) (5)/3(1) (13)/3(2) (7) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. 2. The aforesaid FIR, was, lodged in pursuance to orders pronounced upon a complaint, made on 14.12.2010 by complainant one Bir Singh, before the learned Magistrate concerned. In the FIR, allegations, are constituted against the petitioner, of, his making directions upon other accused, embodying therein ascription(s) vis-a-vis him of incriminatory roles, ascriptions whereof fall within, the domain of the apposite provisions of IPC, (I) the penally inculpable directions whereof are comprised in his ordering for theirs locking the pump house of the apposite water supply scheme, for hence depriving the complainant and other co-villagers, all of whom, belong to a scheduled caste community, from the benefit(s) of the water scheme. The aforesaid allegations, detailed, in the apposite FIR vis-a-vis the petitioner would carry prima facie credence also would stall this Court, from concluding that the prosecution of the accused, tantamounting to his being subjected to an ordeal of his facing unnecessary trial, or upon his being prosecuted, there being evident abuse of process(es) of law. Any conclusion, of, the prosecution, of, the accused/petitioner sequelling befallment upon him of unnecessary humiliation and harassment, besides the concert of the complainant, to ensure the prosecution, of the petitioner, tantamounting, to abuse of process of law, (i) would spur upon existence of material on record, revealing, that the allegations reared against the petitioner being a mere contrivance also theirs being engineered by sheer after thought. (ii) The relevant materials, for making discernment(s) qua the allegations constituted in the FIR, against, the petitioner, being a sequel, of, sheer contrivance besides being engineered by afterthought or active confabulations, hence theirs being ridden with a vice of falsity, (iii) whereupon, his prosecution is rendered construable to constitute abuse of process(es) of law, is comprised in CWP No. 2096 of 2010, CWP whereof stood instituted by the complainant before this Court on 12.05.2010, (iv) therein vis-a-vis all the alike therewith grievance(s) ventilated in the apposite FIR, no, ascription(s), is embodied, of any incriminatory role vis-a-vis the petitioner herein. Moreover, he has not been impleaded, as co-respondent in CWP No.2096 of 2010. Given the institution of CWP No.2096 of 2010, occurring, on 12.05.2010 and the petitioner herein being, not arrayed, as a co-respondent therein nor any ascription(s) of any incriminatory role(s) being ventilated therein vis-a-vis the petitioner, (v) also especially when all the grievance(s) ventilated in CWP No. 2096 of 2010, hold affinity vis-a-vis the grievance(s) ventilated in the apposite FIR. (vi) Consequently, the subsequent thereto, instituted complaint, on 14.12.2010, cast under the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P., in sequel, whereto, an order for registration of the FIR was made, (vii) wherein, ascription(s) of incriminatory roles are echoed vis-a-vis the petitioner herein, renders their incorporation therein vis-a-vis the petitioner, to be a sequel, of sheer afterthought, manipulation besides contrivance. Importantly also when CWP No. 2096 of 2010 stood instituted prior to the institution of the apposite complaint vis-a-vis grievance alike the ones borne in the apposite FIR, thereupon, the petitioner was enjoined to, in the aforesaid Civil Writ Petition, make vivid communication(s) vis-a-vis the incriminatory role, of, the petitioner in the relevant penal occurrence also was enjoined to array him, in the apposite CWP, as a co-respondent. However, he has omitted to make ascription(s), of, any incriminatory role vis-a-vis the petitioner herein, in the apposite CWP nor he therein impleaded him, in the array of corespondents. However, he has omitted to make ascription(s), of, any incriminatory role vis-a-vis the petitioner herein, in the apposite CWP nor he therein impleaded him, in the array of corespondents. Consequently, the subsequent thereto instituted complaint by the complainant, carrying ascription(s) therein, of, incriminatory role(s) vis-a-vis the petitioner herein also render open a conclusion, of embodiment in the complaint, of, ascription(s) of incriminatory role vis-a-vis the petitioner herein, being invented, merely for falsely implicating him, (viii) wherefrom, it is befitting to conclude that in case he is subjected to the ordeal of trial, he would be put to unnecessary humiliation and harassment AND also his prosecution would tantamount to gross abuse of process(es) of law. 3. Since, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., a plenary jurisdiction is vested in this Court, to, (i) in the event of proven abuse of process(es) of law also (ii) for forestalling any befallment of any unnecessary humiliation upon the aggrieved, (iii) besides when a close reading, of the apposite material, on record, unveils of ascription(s) of penal misdemeanors vis-a-vis the petitioner/aggrieved, arising, from sheer invention besides contrivance, hence quash the apposite proceedings. Thereupon, with the germane apposite thereto aforestated material hence begetting satiation(s), thereof, hence constrains this court to allow the instant petition. Moreover, the principle(s)/guidelines appertaining to valid exercise of extraordinary powers vested under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., stand expostulated, by the Hon''ble Apex Court, in a case titled as State of Harayana vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 S.C. 604 , the relevant paragraph No.108 whereof stands extracted hereinafter, within domain(s) whereof, also the relevant material hereat falls,:- "108. 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 decision 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 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. 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 FIR 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.? 4. Furthermore, the effect(s) of the aforesaid inferences would stand effaced, if, evident material depicting qua the tangible reason(s), precluding, the complainant, to, in CWP No.2096 of 2010, hence make any ascription(s) vis-a-vis the petitioner herein, (i) rather his subsequently acquiring knowledge in respect of the penal misdemeanors, of the petitioner herein. 4. Furthermore, the effect(s) of the aforesaid inferences would stand effaced, if, evident material depicting qua the tangible reason(s), precluding, the complainant, to, in CWP No.2096 of 2010, hence make any ascription(s) vis-a-vis the petitioner herein, (i) rather his subsequently acquiring knowledge in respect of the penal misdemeanors, of the petitioner herein. However, a reading of the reply furnished by the State also readings of the material existing on record, does not, make any upsurging(s) (ii) of the complainant being earlier precluded, from, obtaining knowledge of the incriminatory roles of the petitioner, especially at the stage of his filing the aforesaid CWP before this Court, (iii) hence his omitting to make ascription(s) therein vis-a-vis the petitioner also his hence omitting, to, array the petitioner herein as a co-respondent, in the apposite CWP. Consequently, the aforesaid omissions, on the part of the complainant, constrains an inference that he has subsequently levelled false allegations against the petitioner herein, also theirs being a sequel of his being prodded or actuated, (iv) wherefrom it is inevitable to conclude, that, the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein in the apposite FIR are a result of proactive manipulation(s), invention(s) and premeditation(s), besides are engendered by spite AND for wreaking vendetta upon the petitioner. Further more, as its natural corollary, it is apt to conclude that the prosecution of the petitioner would befall unnecessary humiliation and harassment, upon him, and also would result in gross abuse of process(es) of law. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is allowed and FIR No. 57, of 17.09.2013, registered in Police Station Swarghat, District Bilaspur, H.P., under Sections 143, 430, 447, 448, 120-B of the IP and Sections 3(1) (5)/3(1) (13)/3(2) (7) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, is quashed only qua the petitioner herein. Records be sent back forthwith. All pending applications also stand disposed of.