Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 979 (RAJ)

Abdul Hameed v. State of Rajasthan

2023-05-01

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.629/2019 dt.01.11.2019 registered at Police Station Gangapur City District Sawai Madhopur for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 & 504 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner are that the petitioner has instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned Civil Court, Gangapur City and after issuing notice therein, the complainant-respondent No.2 lodged the present F.I.R. with the mala-fide intention against the petitioner & his family members. The petitioner has also filed a complaint before the Court of A.C.J.M., Gangapur City against the complainant-respondent No.2 & her family members for offences punishable under Sections 143, 342, 323 and 382 of I.P.C. The petitioner is residing in the State of Uttar Pradesh for his livelihood and he has already deposited total 'stridhan' of complainant-respondent No.2 at concerned Police Station and the allegations levelled against him are totally false. Hence, the present petition be allowed and the impugned F.I.R. 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 petition. Learned State Counsel has also submitted factual report, which is taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the material made available on record. 5. 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. 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 ." 6. 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." 7. 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." 8. 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." 9. 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 complaint, prima-facie, satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence alleged. The Police has statutory right to investigate the matter. Moreover as per factual report, after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 406 of I.P.C. No case is made out for quashing of F.I.R. 10. In the facts and 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.629/2019 dt.01.11.2019 registered at Police Station Gangapur City District Sawai Madhopur for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 & 504 of Indian Penal Code, is made out. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.