Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 254 (RAJ)

Mohit Punia v. State of Rajasthan Through PP

2023-01-23

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2023
ORDER 1. Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.0143/2021 registered at Mahila Police Station, District Bikaner for offence under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 354, 377 & 509 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 05.02.2017. Counsel submits that after a lapse of so many years, this FIR has been lodged against the petitioner levelling false allegations against him in order to put undue pressure upon the petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to compromise the matter and also ready to keep the respondent No.2 with him but she is not agree. Therefore, the FIR may be quashed against the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner in the FIR that the petitioner harassed the complainant mentally and physically and also demanded dowry from her. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the FIR and material on record. 4. The respondent complainant in the FIR has specifically stated that marriage between complainant and petitioner took place on 05.02.2017 and out of wedlock, one son was born. After some time of marriage, the petitioner started harassing the complainant for bringing less dowry. The petitioner also pressurized the complainant for abortion and therefore, she went to her paternal home where she gave birth to her son. Even after birth of son, there was no change in the behaviour of the petitioner with the complainant and on 12.09.2018, she was ousted from matrimonial home and thereafter she went to her uncle’s house. When the petitioner denied to keep the complainant with her, she filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. Some relatives and reputed persons of the society tried to reconcile the issue between the petitioner and the complainant but due to adamancy of the petitioner, the conciliation did not work and the complainant is compelled to live at her uncle’s house. The complainant demanded her Stridhan from the petitioner, but he denied for the same. Thus, upon perusal of FIR, specific allegation has been levelled against the present petitioner, therefore, at the stage of investigation, no case for quashing of FIR is made out in this case. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal & Ors. Thus, upon perusal of FIR, specific allegation has been levelled against the present petitioner, therefore, at the stage of investigation, no case for quashing of FIR is made out in this case. 5. 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 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 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. 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. 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." 6. 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." 7. 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. 8. 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. 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." 9. 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]." 10. 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.0143/2021 registered at Mahila Police Station, District Bikaner is made out. Hence, this misc. petition is hereby dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.