Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 240 (RAJ)

Girdhari v. State of Rajasthan

2024-02-08

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2024
ORDER : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, J. - By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.19/2024 registered at Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu for the offences under Section 341, 323, 382, 342 and 143 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case owing to some pre-existing animosity between the parties. Learned counsel submitted that the FIR has been lodged against the petitioners with malafide intentions only with a view to harass and humiliate them. The petitioners are working at Government posts and, therefore, the complainant wants to create pressure upon them to settle outstanding disputes between them. Learned counsel thus prayed that the impugned FIR and proceedings initiated thereof may be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the misc. petition and submitted that a perusal of the FIR would reveal that specific allegations of committing the impugned acts have been levelled against the petitioners in the FIR. They jointly submitted that the investigation in the matter is pending against the present petitioners and therefore, at this stage, it cannot be concluded that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the impugned FIR. 5. Having gone through the FIR, this Court finds that in the FIR, specific allegations for committing cognizable offences have been levelled against the petitioners. In the considered opinion of this Court, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot go into the correctness of the allegations levelled against the accused person. This Court at this stage is not expected to inspect and consider the entire material nor record its definite finding after examining the material available in the case diary for quashing the FIR. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has illustrated the situations wherein, the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has illustrated the situations wherein, the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Hon'ble Court illustrated as under:- "(a) 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; (b) 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; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose 265 the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) 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; (e) 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; (f) 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; (g) 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." 7. In view of aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration the precedent law, this Court is not inclined to exercise the powers vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in question. 8. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition as well as stay application are dismissed.