Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 359 (HP)

Lalit Singh v. State of H. P.

2017-04-17

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present petition is maintained by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as “the Code”) for quashing of criminal case, titled as State of H.P. vs. Lalit Singh, under Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be called as “the Act”) and under Section 506-A of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending adjudication before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No-II, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. 2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present petition are that as per the petitioner, vide resolution dated 24.05.2014, Gram Panchayat Sundha Bhonda have authorized the petitioner to take appropriate action as per law against the residents of the Panchayat, who are indulged in polluting the environment surrounding the Panchayat by obstructing regular flow of filthy drain water. On 02.06.2014 the petitioner reported the incident of digging of septic tank on Government land, which was at the instance of respondent No. 2, due to which all roads were blocked and dirty water was flowing in other houses. When the petitioner has advised him not to indulge in such activities, respondent No. 2 not even started abusing, but also tried to quarrel with the petitioner. After the said occurrence the petitioner informed the incident to the Police and reported that his action is in the capacity of public servant and since respondent No. 2 has obstructed him to discharge such duties, an appropriate action is required to be taken by the Police. However, as per the petitioner, no action in this regard has yet been taken against respondent No. 2. To the contrary, on 04.06.2014, respondent No. 2 has also registered FIR No. 32/2014, under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act, against the petitioner. But, as per the petitioner he was falsely implicated in the present case and instead of any independent witness, respondent No. 2 has produced his family member as witnesses. Now the challan has been presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No-II, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. and a total false case has been registered against the petitioner, the proceedings pending before the learned Court below are thus, required to be quashed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 4. Dr. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 4. Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the case made out against the petitioner, is an outcome of revenge, which the complainant wanted to take and without there being any independent witness, a total false case was got registered against the petitioner, so present is a fit case where this Court should exercise inherent powers and quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that challan has been presented before the learned Court below and there is a good case against the petitioner, from the statement of the complainant and other witnesses, it is clear that the petitioner has committed the offence and the present petition is required to be dismissed. 6. Mr. V.D. Khidta, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has brought the attention of this Court to the specific averments, as found mentioned in the record and argued that a clear case is made out against the petitioner. He further states that there are averments against the petitioner, so proceeding pending before the learned Court below needs no interference and the present petition required to be dismissed straightway. 7. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I gone through the record in detail. 8. From the documents on record i.e., statement of the complainant/respondent No. 2, as made by him before the Police, wherein he alleged that when he alongwith his wife and father was breaking stones for making wall of septic tank, the petitioner came there and in order to insult him, called him by his caste, he said that from this septic tank dirty water will go to his land. The complainant further stated that the proposed septic tank is quit away from the land of the petitioner. Similar are the statements of Krishna Devi and Sushil Kumar and other witnesses. 9. When there are clear allegations with respect to certain offence and on the basis of which the case was registered, this Court in exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code, is not required to search for evidence, which is not part of the record to conclude the innocence of the petitioner. 9. When there are clear allegations with respect to certain offence and on the basis of which the case was registered, this Court in exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code, is not required to search for evidence, which is not part of the record to conclude the innocence of the petitioner. There are clear allegations against the petitioner, whereas Sushil Kumar is an independent witness who has supported the case of the prosecution. The powers under Section 482 of the Code are in the nature of exercising exceptional jurisdiction and required to be exercised in rarest of rare cases, however as far as the present case is concerned, it do not falls in such category and when there is a clear evidence against the petitioner, as well as there is an independent witness also to that effect, which prime facie prove the guilt of the accused and there seems no violation of natural justice in the present case. 10. It is well settled law that the Police have powers to investigate a cognizable case and in the present case, the prosecution on the basis of material on record, which is sufficient, proceeded against the petitioner. As discussed above, there is no reason to quash the proceedings. 11. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, have clearly defined the categories of cases wherein inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Their Lordships have held as under: (I) 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. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. (v) 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. (vi) Where there is a 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. (vii) 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. 12. In the present case, none of these conditions are attracted, only a little assertion in the present petition is that in order to take revenge from the petitioner, the false case is made out against him, however from the evidence on record and the statement of independent witness, the same is otherwise not clear. 13. From FIR and the statement of the witnesses, it is revealed that prima facie offence is committed by the petitioner, and he is liable to be proceeded under sections, for which he is being charged. This Court did not find the present case to be a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 14. This Court did not find the present case to be a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 14. In view of the law, discussed hereinabove and evidence on record, I find no merit in the present petition, the same deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of.