Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 703 (RAJ)

Lakhveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2024-04-29

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2024
ORDER : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, J. - By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for following relief: "It is, therefore, the petitioner humbly prays that this Criminal Misc. petition filed by applicants may kindly be allowed and applicants apprehending arrest in FIR No.282/2023 dated 21.04.2023 Registered at Police Station Hanumangarh Town District Hanumangarh for the offences under section 379,447, 39 OF I.P.C. may kindly be stayed during pendency of this criminal misc petition." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the FIR against the present petitioners has been lodged after a delay of about ten days without furnishing any plausible explanation for the same. Learned counsel further submitted that a civil dispute is also pending between the parties on the same set of facts and therefore, the same has been given a colour of criminal offence by the complainant to pressurize the petitioners and force them to settle the civil dispute. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made in the present petition and submitted that a factual report has been furnished to him by the SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Town wherein the offences punishable under Section 447, 379 and 34 of the IPC have been found to be proved against the present petitioners and a charge sheet has been proposed against them. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the impugned FIR. This Court prima facie finds that a cognizable offence have been found to be proved against the present petitioners. In the opinion of this court at this stage this Court is not expected to scan all the material available on record or to record a finding as to whether the petitioners have been committed any offences or not. 5. 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." 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration the precedent law, this Court is not inclined to continue the present criminal misc. petition. 7. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition and so also the stay petition stand disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy in any defence at the time of furnishing of the charge sheet.