Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 183 (RAJ)

Bhagirath S/o Dhanna Ram v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-01-17

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2023
ORDER : 1. Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.0197/2022 registered at Police Station Bichhwal, District Bikaner for offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC. 2. The facts in brief are that the complainant-respondent No.2 being power of attorney holder of Bhoma Ram submitted a complaint before the learned Special Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Cases), Bikaner alleging therein that Smt. Asi Devi D/o Late Jeevan Ram and mother of Bhoma Ram was having 1/5th share in joint agriculture land situated in Village Bamblu being Khasra No.161 measuring 13.50000 hectares, Khasra No.303 measuring 11.3300 hectares, Khasra No.306 measuring 8.2000 hectares, Khasra No.333 measuring 1.7000 hectares and Khasra No.425 measuring 9.5700 hectares, total 44.3000 hectares. Smt. Asi Devi died on 12.05.1995 and after her death, Dhanna Ram and Bhoma Ram were her descendants. It was further alleged in the FIR that the present petitioners while hatching the conspiracy got prepared a forged succession certificate on 10.05.1995 from Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bapeu showing themselves descendants of Asi Devi and with the collusion of Patwari, Tehsildar and Girdavar, get recorded 1/5th share of Asi Devi in their names in revenue record and subsequently on 27.04.2022, they sold 1/10th of the agriculture land to one Vimla Devi through a registered sale-deed. The complainant alleged that by the aforesaid act, the petitioners had committed forgery with Bhoma Ram. 3. The learned trial court sent the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Bichhwal, District Bikaner for investigation. Upon which, FIR No.0197/2022 was registered for offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC. 4. Hence, being aggrieved by the impugned FIR, the petitioners filed the present misc. petition for quashing of the same. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of the petitioners Shri Dhanna Ram and Asi Devi were expired in the years 1992 and 1993 respectively and at the time of their death, the petitioners were minor. Also, the petitioners have not initiated any proceeding for obtaining the succession certificate issued on 10.05.1995 as on the said date also, the petitioners were minor and only on the basis of the said succession certificate, the land in dispute was recorded in the petitioners’ name in revenue record. Also, the petitioners have not initiated any proceeding for obtaining the succession certificate issued on 10.05.1995 as on the said date also, the petitioners were minor and only on the basis of the said succession certificate, the land in dispute was recorded in the petitioners’ name in revenue record. Counsel submits that the entire proceeding was undertaken by Bhoma Ram himself, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have deceived any property fraudulently or dishonestly, therefore, the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are totally false. 6. Counsel further submits that the complainant-respondent No.2 has lodged the impugned FIR being power of attorney holder of Bhoma Ram, whereas the land in question actually belonged to Jeevan Ram. Jeevan Ram was having three sons namely Jetha Ram, Shera Ram & Uda Ram and two daughters Asi and Rewanti. The respondent No.2 is son of Jetha Ram and Aadu Ram is son of Shera Ram. The respondent No.2 with the intent to grab the land of share of Shera Ram, showing himself son of Shera Ram has get mutated the land, therefore, Adu Ram filed a complaint before S.P., Bikaner against respondent No.2 on 09.02.2022. Subsequently, compromise was arrived at between the respondent No.2 and Adu Ram. Counsel submits that the respondent No.2 with the intent to take revenge of the said dispute, has filed the present FIR against the petitioner. 7. It is further submitted that Bhoma Ram, petitioners and other legal heirs of Jeevan Ram and Asi had filed a suit before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bikaner for declaration, correction in record and partition. Counsel submits that later on, the said suit was withdrawn and a false averment has been made by the complainant that the petitioners had prepared a forged succession certificate in the year 1995. Counsel submits that during investigation, the Investigation Officer has not taken into consideration the record of the revenue record as well as the fact that the petitioners had never prepared any type of succession certificate. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is prayed that the FIR in question may be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for respondent No.2 submit that specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioners in the FIR. 9. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the FIR and material on record. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is prayed that the FIR in question may be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for respondent No.2 submit that specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioners in the FIR. 9. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the FIR and material on record. The Investigation Officer is also present in the Court along with case diary. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that the documents relating to revenue suit are already available in the case diary and the Investigation Officer thoroughly examined these documents during investigation. The witnesses also stated that the succession certificate was prepared in the year 2013 and the date of issuance of certificate has wrongly been mentioned as 10.05.1995. Thus, prima facie, it is apparent that the Police, after investigation, has found the offences to be proved against the present petitioners, therefore, no case for quashing of FIR is made out in this case. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal & Ors. : 1992 Suppl. (1) 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. 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. 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 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. 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." 11. 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." 12. In another decision in the case of Pratibha Vs. 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." 12. In another decision in the case of Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari Devi & Ors, JT 2007 (11) 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. In a subsequent decision, Vinod Raghuvanshi Vs. Ajay Arora & Ors. : (2013) 10 SCC 581 ], in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Supreme Court affirmed the order passed by the High Court whereby it declined to exercise inherent powers for quashment of criminal proceedings. The Court observed: "It is a settled legal proposition that while considering the case for quashing of the criminal proceedings the court should not "kill a still born child", and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. When a prosecution at the initial stage is to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie establish the offence. At this stage neither can the court embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence nor should the court judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. More so, the charge-sheet filed or charges framed at the initial stage can be altered/amended or a charge can be added at the subsequent stage, after the evidence is adduced in view of the provisions of Section 216 CrPC. So, the order passed even by the High Court or this Court is subject to the order which would be passed by the trial Court at a later stage." 13. In another case of N. Soundaram Vs. P.K. Pounraj & Anr. So, the order passed even by the High Court or this Court is subject to the order which would be passed by the trial Court at a later stage." 13. 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]." 14. 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.0197/2022 registered at Police Station Bichhwal, District Bikaner is made out. 15. Hence, this misc. petition is hereby dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.