Dungar Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No. 8/2014 of Police Station, Shivpura, District Pali, for offence punishable under Sections 451, 323, 143, 341 and 427 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in relation to the same incident, the petitioner has also lodged an FIR No. 7/2014 at the same Police Station against the respondent No. 2 and other persons prior to the filing of impugned FIR and since the petitioner has filed the FIR No. 7/2014 against the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2 has filed the impugned FIR as counter blast. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the impugned FIR and, therefore, the impugned FIR may kindly be quashed.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR constitute prima facie case against the petitioner and, therefore, no interference is called for while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned FIR.

The complainant-respondent No. 2 has specifically alleged in the impugned FIR that when he was sitting in his residence on 17.01.2014 at about 11:12 AM, the petitioner along with other persons came there and started damaging the chabutari of his house and when the complainant-respondent No. 2 tried to stop them, he along with other co-accused persons assaulted his son, daughter and mother.

Hon''ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and another Shri S.A. Khan, has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing First Information Report lodged in any police station while exercising the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has held as under:--

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases 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 formulae 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 F.I.R. 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, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(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.

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice."

In a later decision the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, has reiterated the above principle.

In the instant case, after reading the contents of the impugned FIR, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the complainant-respondent No. 2 against the petitioner do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. At this stage it cannot be said that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the impugned FIR.

In such circumstances, in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in above referred cases, this Court does not find any merit in this Criminal Misc. Petition as the petitioner has failed to make out a case for quashing the impugned FIR.

Hence there is no force in this Criminal Misc. Petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Stay petition is also dismissed.