Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 726 (RAJ)

Saddam Hussain v. State

2020-12-09

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2020
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 156/2019 registered at Police Station Sadar, Bhilwara for offence under Sections 420, 406 IPC and Section 4, 5 & 6 of Chit Fund Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint before the S.H.O. Police Station, Sadar Bhilwara stating therein that one Devi lal met him and allured him to invest in a Hyderabad based company. He was assured that depositing a sumof Rs.45,000/-, he will receive Rs.1500/- per day for three months. The complainant started receiving amount of Rs.1500/- per day and he again gave a sum of Rs.45,000/-. Later on some dispute arose among the complainant and accused Devil lal. Upon collecting information about a whatsapp number, he came to know that the same belongs to petitioner Saddam. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence. It is argued that the petitioner has not obtained any money from the complainant. It is argued that petitioner never met the complainant nor he visited the house of the complainant. In the first information report, it has only been mentioned that the petitioner is a helper of the main accused Devi Lal and no allegation receiving the money has been made against the present petitioner, therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed qua the present petitioner. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that offences as alleged by the complainant has been fully proved after thorough investigation by the police. It is argued that specific allegation has been levelled by the complainant against the petitioner and Devi lal for alluring people by giving false promises of returning money on daily basis. It is submitted that prima facie case is established against the petitioner, therefore, at this stage, the FIR is not liable to be quashed. 5. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the FIR and material on record. 6. From the perusal of the FIR, it is revealed that the accused petitioner and Devi Lal in furtherance of conspiracy, allured people to invest in the company with false promise of returning three times the money invested. 5. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the FIR and material on record. 6. From the perusal of the FIR, it is revealed that the accused petitioner and Devi Lal in furtherance of conspiracy, allured people to invest in the company with false promise of returning three times the money invested. When the complainant party contacted the accused on Whatsapp number, the same was registered in the name of petitioner Saddam who in cannivance with Devi lal used to cheat common people. Thus, prima facie case of cheating is made out against the petitioner. Since the matter is at the investigation stage, it cannot be said that the FIR is liable to be quashed 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal & Ors., (1992) Supp1 SCC 335, laid down guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and criminal proceedings. The Court held: "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 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 primafacie 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 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. 3. 2. 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. 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 noncognizable 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 FIR 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." 8. Yet again, Supreme Court, in case of Janta Dal Vs. Yet again, Supreme Court, in case of Janta Dal Vs. H.S. Choudhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 , while relying on Choudhary Bhajanlal's case (supra), held: "This inherent power conferred by Section 482 of the Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to the cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. This Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., to which both of us were parties have dealt with this question at length and enunciated the law listing out the circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction in quashing proceedings. We do not, therefore, think it necessary in the present case to extensively deal with the import and intendment of the powers under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Code." 9. In another decision in the case of Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari Devi & Ors, (2007) 11 JT 122 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot go beyond the allegations made in the F.I.R or rely upon extraneous consideration. For the purpose of finding out the commission of a cognizable offence, the High Court is only required to look into the allegations made in the complaint or the F.I.R. 10. In another case of N. Soundaram Vs. P.K. Pounraj & Anr., (2014) 10 SCC 616 , Supreme Court, while reiterating the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) on scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., held: "It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice [See State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal]. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482, CrPC [See MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi]. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. [See Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora]." 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case so also in the light of the judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court, no case for quashing of FIR No. 156/2019 registered at Police Station Sadar, Distt. Bhilwara is made out. Hence, this misc. petition is hereby dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.