Ashok Gurjar vs State of Rajasthan And Ors

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR No.0155/2020 registered at Police Station

Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar for the offences under Sections 380, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC.

Drawing attention of this Court towards the agreement dated 02.10.2015 (Annexure-2), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

complainant has already sold the property in question in his favour and hence, the FIR deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel submitted that the

complainant has filed a civil suit bearing No.67/2019 wherein, there is no allegation of execution of any forged agreement to sell. He submitted that he

has further sold the property vide agreement to sell dated 23.03.2020 to Shri Umar Farooq Gauri who has also filed a suit for permanent injunction

against him. He, therefore, prayed that the FIR in question be quashed.

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted the status report dated 03.02.2021 furnished by the Station House Officer, Police Station Jhalrapatan, District

Jhalawar, which is taken on record. As per the status report, from the investigation carried out so far, the allegations have found to be established

against the present petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

It is trite law that if bare reading of the FIR reveals commission of cognizable offence, this Court should not quash the same and scuttle the

investigation at the threshold under its extraordinary jurisdiction vide Section 482 of CrPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of State of

Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bajjoori Kanthaiah and Ors., AIR 2009 SCC 671, held as under:-

As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power

requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent

power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a

prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are 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 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 cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the

proceeding at any stage.(See: The Janata Dal etc. v. H.S. Chowdhary and others, etc. (AIR 1993 SC 892), Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar and

another (AIR 1964 SC 1)). It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to

determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be

erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with.

In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does

not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which

cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of

the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in

conviction or acquittal. The complaint/F.I.R. has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the

statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the F.I.R. that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no

material to show that the complaint/F.I.R. is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High

Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary

importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations

of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding. (See : Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v.

R. Prasanna Kumar and others (AIR 1990 SC 494), State of Bihar and another v. P. P. Sharma, I.A.S. and another (1992 Suppl (1) SCC 222), Rupan

Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another (1995 (6) SCC 194), State of Kerala and others v. O.C. Kuttan and others (1999

(2) SCC 651), State of U.P. v. O. P. Sharma (1996 (7) SCC 705), Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997 (2) SCC 397), Satvinder

Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and another (1999 (8) SCC 728), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and others AIR 1999 SC 1216), State of

Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and another (2002 (3) SCC 89)."" Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr. Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., AIR 2008 SCC 2781, held as under:-

30.We may reiterate and emphasise that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of

the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles.

The inherent power 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 prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are 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 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 cases in which the High Court will exercise its jurisdiction of

quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhury (1992) 4 SCC 305; Raghubir Saran Dr. v. State of Bihar 1964 (2) SCR

336; Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451; and Zhandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and Others v. Mohd. Sharaful

Haque and Another 2005 (1) SCC 122].

In the present case, the FIR in question contains specific allegation against the petitioner of forging an agreement to sell in his favour allegedly

executed by the complainant. Thus, the contents of the FIR disclose commission of cognizable offence and cannot be quashed.

As regards the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the civil suit filed by the complainant against him, there is no allegation of forging

an agreement to sell, in para 7 of the plaint, the complainant has specifically averred that plea of the defendant (petitioner herein) as to execution of an

agreement to sell in his favour by her, is false and she has never executed any sale agreement in his favour nor she received any sale consideration. In

these circumstances, contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

Since, the FIR discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner, the same cannot be quashed by this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction under

Section 482 CrPC.

Resultantly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.