Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2418 (RAJ)

Sahi Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2017-11-03

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2017
ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing of the FIR No.226/2014 registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that while seeking a job of Pharmacist, the petitioner had submitted an affidavit to the effect that his marriage was solemnized on 11.06.2012, whereas the actual date of marriage was 14.04.2006. It is stated that the name of son Jeetu and wife were mentioned and at the most, the date of marriage mentioned in the affidavit could have been wrong. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the complainant is real brother in law of the present petitioner and out of mutual enimosity, the present complaint has been lodged. The statement of brother has been recorded and he has agreed to enter into the compromise. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed on the ground of latest case law in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP (CRL) No.9549 of 2010. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "Bearing in mind the above principles which have been laid down in the decisions of this Court, we are of the view that the High Court was justified in declining to entertain the application for quashing the First Information Report in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The High Court has adverted to two significant circumstances. Each of them has a bearing on whether the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash the FIR would sub serve or secure the ends of justice or prevent an abuse of the process of the court. The first is that the appellants were absconding and warrants had been issued against them under section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The second is that the appellants have criminal antecedents, reflected in the chart which has been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment. The first is that the appellants were absconding and warrants had been issued against them under section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The second is that the appellants have criminal antecedents, reflected in the chart which has been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment. The High Court adverted to the modus operandi which had been followed by the appellants in grabbing valuable parcels of land and noted that in the past as well, they were alleged to have been connected with such nefarious activities by opening bogus bank accounts. It was in this view of the matter that the High Court observed that in a case involving extortion, forgery and conspiracy where all the appellants were acting as a team, it was not in the interest of society to quash the FIR on the ground that a settlement had been arrived at with the complainant. We agree with the view of the High Court. The present case, as the allegations in the FIR would demonstrate, is not merely one involving a private dispute over a land transaction between two contesting parties. The case involves allegations of extortion, forgery and fabrication of documents, utilization of fabricated documents to effectuate transfers of title before the registering authorities and the deprivation of the complainant of his interest in land on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney. If the allegations in the FIR are construed as they stand, it is evident that they implicate serious offences having a bearing on a vital societal interest in securing the probity of titles to or interest in land. Such offences cannot be construed to be merely private or civil disputes but implicate the societal interest in prosecuting serious crime. In these circumstances, the High Court was eminently justified in declining to quash the FIR which had been registered under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506(2) of the Penal Code." 5. Learned Public Prosecutor states that the trial has already commenced and progressed quite a bit and another allegation under Section 302 of IPC is also pending against the present petitioner, apart from the matrimonial dispute. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor states that the trial has already commenced and progressed quite a bit and another allegation under Section 302 of IPC is also pending against the present petitioner, apart from the matrimonial dispute. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Hon'ble Apex Court has only refused to interfere in the matters, wherein allegations of extortion, forgery and fabrication of documents, utilization of fabricated documents to effectuate transfers of title before the registering authorities and the deprivation of the complainant of his interest in land on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court further states that such implications and serious offences having a bearing on the vital societal interest in securing the probity of titles to or interest in land and therefore, in the larger societal interest, the compromise was refused. The facts of the precedent law are different from the present case in hand, as in the present case, it was the dispute of matrimony, which spilled over into complaint for the wrong date of marriage, and moreover, the parties have already entered into a compromise. Apparently, the larger societal interest is at stake in the present case and it cannot be said that the present law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ] and Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. [ 2014 (6) SCC 466 is applicable in the present case. Since the matter is distinguishable, therefore, this Court deems it to be a fit case for application of the ratio laid down in the decision of Gian Singh (supra) and Narendra Singh (supra). 8. In view of the compromise arrived between the parties and applying the ratio in decision of Gian Singh (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra), I deem it just and proper to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 9. Accordingly, the present misc. 8. In view of the compromise arrived between the parties and applying the ratio in decision of Gian Singh (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra), I deem it just and proper to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 9. Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and the FIR bearing No.226/2014 registered Police Station Shastri Nagar and charge sheet No.0091/2015 in pursuance of criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.7, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Case No.87/2015 are hereby quashed and set aside and the petitioner is exonerated from the offences as levelled in the FIR and charge sheet and charges framed against him.