Harish Sethi and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C. for short) seeking quashing of FIR No. 147 dated 3.10.2007 registered under Sections 323, 324, 506, 341, 148, 149 IPC at Police station Division No. 7, Jalandhar.

The allegations levelled in the FIR are that on 2.10.2007 at about 4.30 P.M., complainant along with his cousin sister -Vandana, father Ravi Bhushan and brother Ishu were travelling in their car. When they reached in front of Taj Hotel, they were attacked by the petitioners. Rajesh Nanda, petitioner No. 5 raised a lalkara that the complainant party be taught a lesson. Rajesh Nanda attacked the complainant with a knife and inflicted injury on his right upper arm. Simi, petitioner No. 6 took out a danda from the car and gave a blow on the right hand of the complainant. Harish Sethi, petitioner No. 1 gave a blow with his leather shoe. Ritu Sethi, petitioner No. 2 took the danda from petitioner No. 6 and gave a blow on the person of the complainant. When the brother of the complainant tried to save his, Manohar Lal, petitioner No. 3 gave a danda blow on the person of Ishu on his right foot. Aruna Bhandari, petitioner No. 4 gave a danda blow in the stomach, which was in her hand.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely involved in this case. In fact, no such occurrence, as alleged, had taken place. Rather petitioner No. 5 was attacked by Vandana Shukla and others while he was travelling in his car. He has placed reliance on the photographs Annexure P2.

It has been held by the Apex Court in R.S. Raghunath Vs. State of Karnataka and another, , as under:

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 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, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases whereinsuch power should be exercised:

(1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, 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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 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 no 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 Magistrate as contemplated u/s 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 specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings 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 the 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 FIR 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 the present case, specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners with regard to the infliction of injuries on the person of the complainant and his brother Ishu on 2.10.2007. The matter was investigated after registration of the FIR and now, the challan has been presented in the Court.

Keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal''s case (supra), no ground for quashing of the FIR is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.