Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1021 (RAJ)

Yogesh Singh Tanwar v. State of Rajasthan

2023-05-04

CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

body2023
ORDER : Chandra Kumar Songara, J. Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioner with the prayer for quashing of F.I.R. No.868/2019 registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur City (East) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant with an inordinate delay and as a counter-blast to falsely implicate the petitioner, as no case is made out against the petitioner. Counsel has further submitted that a civil suit is also pending before learned Civil Court for taking possession of acquired land by the Housing Board and when it came to the knowledge of the petitioner, he approached the complainant to return total amount of sale consideration and the complainant has not returned the said amount. Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has filed the criminal complaint before the learned Court of A.C.J.M. Kotputli on 05.07.2019. The said Court has sent a complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Kotputli. On such complaint, Police registered a case/F.I.R. No.496/2019 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120- B of I.P.C. Lastly, counsel has prayed that the present petition be allowed and the impugned F.I.R. No.868/2019, alongwith all subsequent proceedings, be quashed & set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent No.2, have opposed the submissions made herein-above and prayed for dismissal of the present petition. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has also submitted the factual report, which is taken on record. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent No.2, has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijayander Kumar and Others v. State of Rajasthan & Another, (2014) 3 SCC 389 . 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the material made available on record and the judgment cited herein-above. 7. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the material made available on record and the judgment cited herein-above. 7. In the case of N. Soundaram v. P.K. Pounraj & Another, (2014) 10 SCC 616 , Hon'ble Supreme Court, while reiterating the principles laid down in Choudhary Bhajan Lal on the scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has observed as under :- "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. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. [See Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora] (2013) 10 SCC 581 ." 8. In the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 CRILJ 2419, Hon'ble Apex Court, on scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in Para 23 (iv), (v) & (vii), has observed as under :- "iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule." 9. In the case of Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari v. The State of Gujarat and Another, reported in A.I.R. 2022 SC 3930, Hon'ble Apex Court, has observed as under :- "6. In the case of Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari v. The State of Gujarat and Another, reported in A.I.R. 2022 SC 3930, Hon'ble Apex Court, has observed as under :- "6. It appears from the impugned order passed by the High Court that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated and/or considered our earlier judgment and order passed in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Even the learned Single Judge has also not properly understood the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It appears that the learned Single Judge seems to be of the opinion that after giving reasons, the High Court can grant an interim stay of further investigation in a petition seeking quashing of the criminal complaint filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court has not properly appreciated the principles and the law laid down by this Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra). What is emphasized by this Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is that grant of any stay of investigation and/or any interim relief while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be only in the rarest of rare cases. This Court has also emphasized the right of the Investigating Officer to investigate the criminal proceedings. In our earlier judgment and order, in fact, we abstracted the principles laid down by this Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in paragraph 4." 10. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another v. Akhil Sharda & Others, (2022) 6 SCR 772 , Hon'ble Apex Court, has observed as under :- "7. In our earlier judgment and order, in fact, we abstracted the principles laid down by this Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in paragraph 4." 10. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another v. Akhil Sharda & Others, (2022) 6 SCR 772 , Hon'ble Apex Court, has observed as under :- "7. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered." 11. In the case of Vijayander Kumar and Others (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court, in Para 12, has held as under :- "12. Learned counsel for the respondents is correct in contending that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may also be available to the informant/complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint discloses a criminal offence or not. This proposition is supported by several judgments of this Court as noted in paragraph 16 of judgment in the case of Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka and Another v. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited." 12. From perusal of F.I.R. impugned, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence has been committed. The specific allegations in the F.I.R. impugned have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations in the F.I.R., prima-facie, satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged and the Police has statutory right to investigate the matter. From perusal of F.I.R. impugned, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence has been committed. The specific allegations in the F.I.R. impugned have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations in the F.I.R., prima-facie, satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged and the Police has statutory right to investigate the matter. Moreover as per factual report, after investigation, offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of I.P.C. were found against the petitioner and the petitioner has criminal antecedents of seven cases, out of which, five cases are similar in nature for offences punishable under Sections 420 & 406 of I.P.C. It is also mentioned in the factual report that two F.I.R. Nos.573/2013 & 496/2019 were lodged by petitioner against the complainant and after investigation, they were found to be false. Hence, no case is made out for quashing of F.I.R. No.869/2019. 13. In the facts & circumstances of the case so also in the light of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no case for quashing of impugned F.I.R. No.868/2019 registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur City (East) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of Indian Penal Code, is made out. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.