Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 824 (RAJ)

Dharma Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2023-04-13

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2023
ORDER 1. The present misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.0068/2022 registered at Police Station Bagdi, Distt. Pali for offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 494, 495, 496 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No.2 submitted a complaint before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sojat on 22.04.2022 alleging therein that the complainant and accused-persons are members of same community and the accused-petitioners No.7, 4, 3 & 5 are fatherin-law, mother-in-law, wife and brother-in-law of the complainant. The marriage of the complainant with accused-petitioner No.3-Tara Devi was solemnized as per Hindu rituals on 06.09.2016. At the time of their engagement, accused-petitioner No.7-Bhikha Ram requested the family member of the complainant that he required Rs.7,00,000/- for marriage of his other daughters. The complainant gave Rs.1,00,000/- in his village Karmawas Patta, Rs.3,00,000/- in Vishakhapattanam and Rs.3,00,000/- again in his village Karmawas Patta to accused No.7 at different times, who assured him that they will return the amount after five years on demand. After marriage of the complainant and accused-petitioner No.3, both lived in village Karmawaspatta and thereafter, in Vishakhapattanam from the year 2017 to 2021. On 10.05.2021, accused-petitioner No.5 Raichand told the complainant on telephone that the health condition of father of Tara Devi is not good and asked to send her. The complainant dropped the accused-petitioner No.3-Tara Devi at her village Rampura Kalan, who carried all the ornaments and mobile phone with her. On 12.05.2021, he tried to contact accused-petitioner No.3 as well as other accused-persons, but no one talked to him on phone. The complainant and his relatives, Sayari Devi, Bhera Ram, Kesa Ram, Lachhki Devi went several times to fetch Tara Devi but the accused-petitioners Bhika Ram, Pushpa Devi and Raichand did not allow him to meet her. The complainant also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 15.03.2022 before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, in which notices have been issued. Despite having knowledge that accusedpetitioner No.3-Tara Devi is legally wedded wife of the complainant, all the accused have performed the marriage of accused-petitioner No.3 with accused-petitioner No.2 Kishan Ram while forging documents in collusion with accused-petitioners Nos.1 & 6, Dharma Ram and Narayan Lal. Despite having knowledge that accusedpetitioner No.3-Tara Devi is legally wedded wife of the complainant, all the accused have performed the marriage of accused-petitioner No.3 with accused-petitioner No.2 Kishan Ram while forging documents in collusion with accused-petitioners Nos.1 & 6, Dharma Ram and Narayan Lal. It is alleged in the FIR that accused-petitioners Bhikha Ram and Pushpa Devi while hatching the criminal conspiracy solemnized marriage of the complainant with Tara Devi and grabbed Rs.7,00,000/- as well as gold-silver ornaments; and did not return the same despite demand. On the basis of the said report, an FIR was registered against the accused for offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 494, 495, 496 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.3-Tara Devi had never solemnized marriage with the complainant-respondent No.2. Since the respondent No.2 was known to family member of Tara Devi, he instigated the petitioner No.3 to live with him in live-in-relationship. When the petitioner No.3-Tara Devi lived with the respondent No.2, he started to torture her and therefore, she left the house. It is further contended that petitioner-Bhikha Ram never took money from the complainant, on the contrary when the petitioner-Tara Devi left the house of the complainant then he concocted the alleged story and lodged a false FIR. It is also argued that the complainant never gave any gold or silver ornaments to the petitioner-Tara Devi nor she took any ornaments from the house of the complainant. The complainant-respondent No.2 has lodged the present FIR after the marriage of the petitioner No.3-Tara Devi with Kishan Ram only to put pressure upon petitioner No.3-Tara Devi to stay with him, whereas, she did not solemnized marriage with him and lived with him for some time in live-in-relationship. Furthermore, the petitioners have not prepared any forged documents with intent to commit fraud with any person. It is contended that the document of marriage has not at all been produced by the complainant so the marriage itself has not been proved and therefore, no offence is made out against the petitioners Dharma Ram, Kishan Ram and Narayan Lal. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the present FIR may be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the present FIR may be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It is contended that accused-Bhikha Ram has already been arrested and he has been granted regular bail. The police after thorough investigation found prima facie offences proved against accused-Tara Devi, Dharma Ram, Kishan Ram, Narayan Lal. It is also submitted that the police has also recovered the documents of the first and the second marriage as well as photographs and affidavit. Therefore, the FIR registered against the petitioners may not be quashed. 5. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the record. 6. The documents of the first as well as the second marriage have been recovered by the police and photographs available in the case-diary also shows that the marriage of the petitioner No.3-Tara Devi and the complainant had taken place. The police after thorough investigation has found prima facie the offence proved against the petitioners No.1, 2, 3, 6 & 7. Therefore, it cannot be said that these accused have falsely been implicated in this case. However, no offence has been found to be proved against the petitioners No.4-Pushpa Devi and petitioner No.5 Raichand. 7. 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. 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. 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." 8. 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. 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, reported in 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. 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 case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2021 CRILJ 2419, Hon'ble Apex Court, on scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 ofCr.P.C., in Para 23 (xii) & (xv) observed as under :- 'xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or not. The Court is not required to consider on merits whether the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.' 12. 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.0068/2022 registered at Police Station Bagdi, Distt. Pali qua petitioners No.(1) Dharma Ram, (2) Kishna Ram, (3) Tara Devi, (6) Narain Lal and (7) Bhikha Ram is made out. 13. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition qua the aforesaid petitioners is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. 14. Since, the police did not find prima facie the offences proved against the petitioners No.(4) Pushpa Devi and (5) Raichand, therefore, the present criminal misc petition qua petitioners No.(4) & (5) is dismissed as having become infructuous.