Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 723 (RAJ)

Darshna Jasuja v. State of Rajasthan

2018-03-08

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No. 431/2016 lodged against her at Police Station, Sadar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 2. In the impugned FIR, it is alleged by complainant-respondent No.2 that grand-daughter of the petitioner sold a plot to him through agreement to sale dated 28.10.2014 and received Rs. 10,00,000/- for it. It is also alleged by complainant-respondent No.2 that when he asked the petitioner and her grand-daughter to get the sale-deed registered for the said plot, for which the agreement to sale was executed, they refused to get the sale-deed registered and later on, he came to know that they have already sold the plot in question to some other person before execution of the agreement to sale in his favour. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the agreement to sale dated 28.10.2014 was not executed by the petitioner but the same was executed by her grand-daughter Akanksha. It is also contended that as a matter of fact the complainant-respondent No.2 along with some other persons has hatched a conspiracy against the petitioner and her family members and created the agreement to sale on a blank paper, which was delivered to them in lieu of a loan advanced to the petitioner. It is also contended that an FIR has also been registered at the instance of the petitioner against the complainant-respondent No.2 and other persons and the same is pending investigation. It is also contended that the petitioner is neither executed nor an attesting witness of agreement to sale dated 28.10.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the impugned FIR may kindly be quashed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned FIR. 4. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (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 power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has held as under:- "102. 4. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (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 power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 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. (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. 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 not 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 not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." 5. In a later decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. V/s. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr., (1995) SCC(Cri) 1059 has reiterated the above principle. 6. In the instant case, after reading the contents of the impugned FIR, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the complainant-respondent No.2 against the petitioner do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. 7. In such circumstances, in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred cases, this Court does not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition as the petitioner has failed to make out a case for quashing the impugned FIR. 8. 7. In such circumstances, in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred cases, this Court does not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition as the petitioner has failed to make out a case for quashing the impugned FIR. 8. Hence there is no force in this criminal misc. petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 9. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to move a representation before the Investigating Officer detailing out her defence. It is expected that if any such representation is moved by the petitioner, the Investigating Officer shall consider the same and thereafter proceed with the investigation. 10. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on the aspects of the impugned FIR. 11. Stay petition is also dismissed.