Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 705 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar Ghanchi v. State of Rajasthan

2018-03-07

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner with a prayer for quashing FIR No. 348/2017 of Police Station Kotwali, Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, 307, 34, 186, 189 IPC and Section 3 of the PDPP Act, 1984. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the police has lodged a false FIR against the petitioner because earlier in the year 2015, the petitioner was falsely implicated by the police in a criminal case and being aggrieved with that the petitioner has filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, Rajasthan and in that matter, after detailed enquiry, it was concluded that the police has filed a false FIR against the petitioner and some of the police personnel including the then SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Pali were indicated as wrong doers. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on a complaint filed by the petitioner, prima facie case against the police personnel was found and the enquiry is going on, therefore, a false FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the impugned FIR be quashed and the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner be terminated. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that from the averments contained in the FIR, prima facie case against the petitioner is made out. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the anticipatory bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.9.2017. It is also contended that there is no question of false implication of the petitioner and as a matter of fact, when the police personnel went to the farm house of the petitioner for serving him a notice, the petitioner along with other accused persons had attacked the police party and tried to kill the complainant. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, argued that this criminal misc. petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case dairy. 8. The law laid for quashing of the FIR while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case dairy. 8. The law laid for quashing of the FIR while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing First Information Report lodged in any police station while exercising the powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 and has held as under:- "102. 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 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 the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may 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 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 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 un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do 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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." 9. In a later decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr. reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has reiterated the above principle. 10. In the present case, from the averments contained in FIR, it is revealed that prima facie case is made out. Otherwise also, the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.9.2017. 11. reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has reiterated the above principle. 10. In the present case, from the averments contained in FIR, it is revealed that prima facie case is made out. Otherwise also, the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.9.2017. 11. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgments and keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference by this Court in this criminal misc. petition is made out. 12. Resultantly, this criminal misc. petition being bereft of any force is hereby dismissed. 13. Stay petition is also dismissed.