Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1038 (GUJ)

Ranjeetbhai Danbhai Jebaliya v. State Of Gujarat

2024-04-26

DIVYESH A.JOSHI

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC” for short), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside First Information Report being C.R. No.II-215/2016 registered with Botad Police Station for the offences under Sections 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for short”). 2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Nipul Gondaliya for the applicants and learned APP Mr. Dhavan Jayswal for the respondent no.1 – State of Gujarat. Though served, none appears for the respondent no.2. 3. Learned advocate submitted that the present application has been preferred for quashment of the impugned FIR registered against the applicants herein, wherein at the time of issuance of Rule, the applicants have been protected by passing an order of no coercive steps, however, it was directed to carry out investigation. Learned advocate submitted that the impugned FIR is a counter blast to the FIRs registered by the applicants against the complainant and others. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, the applicants and the respondent no.2 are the neighbours and are residing in adjoining area. Learned advocate submitted that the complainant and his family members are indulged into illegal activities and when the said fact came to the notice of the applicants, they have informed the said fact to the concerned police station and on the strength of the information forwarded by the present applicants, FIR has been registered against the complainant side. Learned advocate submitted that the complainant and his family members are indulged into illegal activities and when the said fact came to the notice of the applicants, they have informed the said fact to the concerned police station and on the strength of the information forwarded by the present applicants, FIR has been registered against the complainant side. Learned advocate submitted that keeping grudge about the registration of the FIR against the complainant side, the complainant and others had gone to the house of the present applicants on 13.05.2016 and administered threats to the applicants and other family members, therefore, the applicants have lodged FIR being C.R. No.I-87/2016 with Botad Police Station for the offences under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act on against those persons on the very same day i.e. on 13.05.2016 and immediately after two days of the said incident, once again the complainant side have formed an unlawful assembly and reached the house of the applicants with deadly weapons and they have made daring attack upon the family members of the applicants and because of the said incident, the applicants have lodged another FIR being C.R. No.I-92/2016 with Botad Police Station for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2), 147, 148, 149, 427 and 452 of the IPC, under Section 25(C) of the Arms Act and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act on 15.05.2016 and because of the above facts, there were inimical terms between them. Learned advocate submitted that therefore keeping in grudge about the registration of the aforesaid FIRs, after certain period of time by creating false and fabricated incident, bogus complaint has been registered against the applicants specifically stating that on a particular place, threat was administered by the applicants to the complainant and they were terrorized due to said act of threat administered by the applicants. Learned advocate submitted that so far as the FIRs filed by the applicants as well as other family members of the applicants against the complainant side are concerned, the IO had carried out investigation and ultimately, chargesheet had been filed against those accused persons. Learned advocate submitted that so far as the FIRs filed by the applicants as well as other family members of the applicants against the complainant side are concerned, the IO had carried out investigation and ultimately, chargesheet had been filed against those accused persons. Learned advocate submitted that during the pendency of the present application, certain further facts have come on surface that one application in the form of complaint filed by one of the employees of the complainant by narrating the incident of facts of abduction/ kidnapping of the family members of the said employee by the applicants and his associates and in pursuance to the said application, the accused mentioned in the said application were called in the police station for recording their statements and after recording the statements of the accused and after considering the veracity of the statements of the accused persons as well as the applicants, the concerned IO came to a conclusion that with sole intent to derail the investigation in connection with the FIRs registered against the complainant side, a false and fabricated version in the form of complaint has been given by the employee of the complainant and during the course of investigation, it is revealed that the said concocted story is generated by the said applicant (employee) at the instance of the complainant, therefore, the concerned Investigating Officer had instituted chapter case against the said applicant and he was arrested and subsequently produced before the Executive Magistrate and released on bail. Learned advocate submitted that the proceedings against the said applicant (employee) have been initiated under Section 107 of the CrPC on the strength of the guilt admitted by him before the concerned authority and at the time of admitting guilt, the said applicant has fairly and candidly accepted his fault stating that his employer (the complainant herein) had told him to narrate the said fact before the police officer and, hence, he had filed the said application. Learned advocate submitted that considering the above factual aspects, it is clearly found out from the record that with sole intent to harass the applicants, a concocted story has been created by the complainant and FIR has been filed, therefore, the proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside as continuation of the proceedings would clearly tantamount to abuse of the process of law. Learned advocate further submitted that on the strength of the above factual aspects, it is clearly found out that with sole intent to harass the applicants, a concocted story has been created by the complainant and FIR has been filed. Learned advocate submitted that though the incident has occurred at about 9 O’clock in night hours in public place, name of any independent witness has not been mentioned in the entire body of the complaint, which clearly goes on to show that the registration of impugned FIR against the applicants is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and same is filed as a counterblast to the FIRs lodged by the applicants. 4. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 as well as in case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside. It is, therefore, urged that the present application may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned APP has objected the present application with a vehemence and submitted that the involvement of the present applicants is clearly spelt out from the body of the complaint itself and name and specific role of the present applicant is clearly stated. Learned APP submitted that it is also found out from the record that there was inimical terms between the complainant and the accused and before registration of the impugned FIR, two FIRs have been registered by the family members of the applicants against the complainant side, wherein at the end of investigation, the chargesheet was submitted and in one of the FIRs, an order of acquittal has been passed by the court concerned. Learned APP submitted that prima facie involvement of the present applicants is clearly found out from the body of the FIR and, hence, no inherent power may not be exercised in favour of the applicants because in this case on hand, prima facie the involvement of the present applicants is found out from the investigation papers collected so far. Learned APP submitted that prima facie involvement of the present applicants is clearly found out from the body of the FIR and, hence, no inherent power may not be exercised in favour of the applicants because in this case on hand, prima facie the involvement of the present applicants is found out from the investigation papers collected so far. It is, therefore, urged that the proceedings against the accused cannot be terminated as this juncture and the investigation may be directed to be proceeded further and, hence, the present application is required to be rejected. 6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it is found out that after pointing out about the illegal activities carried out by the complainant side, the complainant side got annoyed and because of which, they reached the place of the applicants threatened with dire consequences and, hence, the applicants side have lodged FIR against the complainant side and because of which, once again the complainant side have formed and unlawful assembly and reached the place of applicants and threatened them, which led to filing of another FIR as stated above and, hence keeping grudge about the said facts and as a counterblast, the impugned FIR has been lodged by the complainant against the applicants as a pressurize tactics and because of filing of the impugned FIR, the applicants are before this Court for quashment of the impugned FIR, wherein they are protected. It is also found out that pending this application, one more attempt to pressurize the applicants is being made by the employee of the complainant at the instance of the complainant, wherein detailed investigation has been carried out by the concerned IO and at the end of investigation, the concerned IO has come to a definite conclusion that filing of said application is just to derail the investigation so far as the FIRs lodged by the applicants side is concerned and, hence, chapter case has been filed against the said employee. Thus the above facts clearly indicates that the impugned FIR is nothing but a counterblast to the FIRs lodged by the applicants side. 7. At the outset, it is apt to refer the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bhajan Lal (supra). Thus the above facts clearly indicates that the impugned FIR is nothing but a counterblast to the FIRs lodged by the applicants side. 7. At the outset, it is apt to refer the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The relevant para reads as under: “In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch.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 u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which we have extracted and reproduced above, the following categories of cases are given 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 formula 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 F.I.R. 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, (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.” 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of R.P. Kapur (supra) has summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings, which are as under, (I) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 9. In the case of Dinesh Dutt Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 570 , while dealing with the inherent powers of the High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus; "The principle embodied in Section is based upon the maxim: Quando lex aliquid alicuiconcedit, concederevidetur id quo res ipsa esse non potest i.e. when the law gives anything to anyone, it gives also all those things, without which the thing itself would be unavailable. Section does not confer any new power, but only declares that the High Court possesses inherent powers for the purposes specified in the Section. As Lacunae are sometimes found in procedural law, the Section has been embodied to cover such Lacunae wherever they are discovered. The use of extraordinary powers conferred upon the High Court under this Section are however required to be reserved, as far as possible, for extraordinary cases. The principle embodied in Section is based upon the maxim: Quando lex aliquid alicuiconcedit, concedere videtur id quo res ipsa esse non potest i.e. when the law gives anything to anyone, it gives also all those things, without which the thing itself would be unavailable. Section does not confer any new power, but only declares that the High Court possesses inherent powers for the purposes specified in the Section. As Lacunae are sometimes found in procedureal law, the Section has been embodied to cover such Lacunae wherever they are discovered. The use of extraordinary powers conferred upon the High Court under this Section are however required to be reserved, as far as possible, for extraordinary cases." 10. With profit, I may also refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of G. Sagar Vs. The use of extraordinary powers conferred upon the High Court under this Section are however required to be reserved, as far as possible, for extraordinary cases." 10. With profit, I may also refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of G. Sagar Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636 , the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court is as follows; "Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with a great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P., & Anr., reported in (2014) 7 SCC 215 , has very succinctly discussed the position of law so far as quashing of the criminal proceedings is concerned. The Apex Court observed thus; “10. Before we deal with the respective contentions advanced on either side, we deem it appropriate to have thorough look at Section 482 Cr.P.C., which reads: "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any orders of this Code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice". A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C. makes it crystal clear that the object of exercise of power under this section is to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of justice. There are no hard and fast rules that can be laid down for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an exception, but not a rule of law. There are no hard and fast rules that can be laid down for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an exception, but not a rule of law. It is no doubt true that there can be no straight jacket formula nor defined parameters to enable a Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Courts have to be very circumspect while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. This Court in Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v Biological E. Ltd and Others 2000 (3) SCC 269 , has discussed at length about the scope and ambit while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and how cautious and careful the approach of the Courts should be. We deem it apt to extract the relevant portion from that judgment, which reads: "Exercise of jurisdiction under inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge sheet quashed is an exception rather than rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution with the lodgement of First Information Report. The ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes it's own course and the investigation ensures in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and it's undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the Court on a perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the complaint or charge sheet on the fact of it does not constitute or disclose any offence alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situations as is required under the law. Frustrated litigants ought not to be indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness through a legal process and such an investigation ought not to be allowed to be continued since the same is opposed to the concept of justice, which is paramount". 12. Frustrated litigants ought not to be indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness through a legal process and such an investigation ought not to be allowed to be continued since the same is opposed to the concept of justice, which is paramount". 12. This Court in plethora of judgments has laid down the guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, this Court has listed the categories of cases when the power under Section 482 can be exercised by the Court. These principles or the guidelines were reiterated by this Court in (1) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. 1996 (5) SCC 592; (2) Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi 1999 (3) SCC 259 and; (3) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr (2005) 1 SCC 122 . This Court in Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd., observed that: "The power under Section 482 of the Code should be used sparingly and with to prevent abuse of process of Court, but not to stifle legitimate prosecution. There can be no two opinions on this, but if it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuation of a prosecution would lead to abuse of process of Court, the power under Section 482 of the Code must be exercised and proceedings must be quashed". Also see Om Prakash and Ors. V. State of Jharkhand 3012 (12) SCC 72. What emerges from the above judgments is that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the tests to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the case. Also see Om Prakash and Ors. V. State of Jharkhand 3012 (12) SCC 72. What emerges from the above judgments is that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the tests to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the case. The Courts have to see whether the continuation of the complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and whether continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage of justice or when the Court comes to a conclusion that quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice, then the Court can exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. While exercising the power under the provision, the Courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in the complaint whether prima facie discloses an offence or not, but it should not convert itself to that of a trial Court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact." 12. In view of the ratio enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions as well as other decisions, it is required to be noted that whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to get the FIR quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance then, in such circumstances, the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Therefore bare perusal of the contents of the FIR and the facts of the case as noted above, it is found out that the impugned FIR is nothing but a counterblast to the FIRs lodged by the applicants with an oblique motive to pressurize the applicants to settle personal score. Thus considering the above facts of the case, continuation of the proceedings against the applicants would be futile exercise and no purpose would be served keeping the said proceeding alive. Thus considering the above facts of the case, continuation of the proceedings against the applicants would be futile exercise and no purpose would be served keeping the said proceeding alive. The ball of criminality in this given facts and circumstances cannot be permitted to roll on further. The bare perusal of the FIR indicates and demands the exercise of powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contention of the FIR even if remained uncontroverted, it appears to be truly improbable and absurd. Thus, the vindictiveness, which has been propagated by way of impugned FIR at the behest of the complainant cannot be allowed to be vented. Therefore, the present application deserves to be allowed. 13. In the result, the present application is allowed. The impugned First Information Report being C.R. No.II-215/2016 registered with Botad Police Station is hereby quashed and set aside. All consequential proceedings pursuant thereto stand terminated. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.