Lakhabhai Devdhanbhai Jhilariya and Another vs State of Gujarat and Another

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—Heard learned advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. K.P. Raval learned APP appearing for Respondent No. 1. Though served none appears for original complainant - Respondent No. 2.

The Petitioners, who have been named as accused in First Information Report being FIR No. I-98 of 2005 lodged with Morbi City Police Station on 2.5.2005 and the alleged offences have been committed on 15.10.2004, have approached this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the said FIR on the ground that the same is nothing but merely an attempt to scuttle pressure unduly on the Petitioner in respect of the private complaint, which came to be filed by the Petitioner No. 1 in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate being Criminal Case No. 10 of 2004 alleging that the Respondent Nos. 2 and others committed offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2), 394, 307 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

The facts in brief leading to filing of this petition are required to be set out as under:

The applicant No. 1 happens to be original complainant in complaint dated 1.5.2004 filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Morbi. The said complaint is registered as Criminal Case No. 10 of 2004 and the Petitioner No. 2 is shown as witness therein. The Petitioner No. 1 was constrained to file the said complaint against the Respondent No. 2 and other police officers for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2), 394, 307 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morbi after recording statement of the complainant and his witnesses passed an order dated 15.10.2005; after registering the complaint u/s 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure has called upon the complainant to remain present on 12.5.2004 for further evidence. After further inquiring in the matter the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morbi under his order dated 1.5.2004 issued process against the accused. The order of the said process is annexed to the petition as Annexure-C.

Thereafter, the accused Respondent herein appears to have filed complaint in question on 2.5.2005.

This Court (Coram: Mr. Justice Jayant Patel, J) on 2.8.2005 after recording prima facie satisfaction with regard to substance in the matter issued rule and ordered interim relief to continue till final disposal of the matter. In this matter on earlier occasion interim relief was granted on 13.5.2005.

This Court has perused the memo of the petition as well as the complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2 and also the complaint filed by the Petitioner No. 1 wherein the Petitioner No. 2 is shown to be witness. The allegations leveled in the complaint by the Petitioner against the Police Officer have been acted upon by the learned Magistrate and the process is issued. The complaint thus needs appropriate examination as prima facie the learned Magistrate found substance in the complaint and hence the process was issued. In such a situation one of the accused filing complaint with Police Station for alleging offence punishable under Sections 196, 195, 469, 470, 471 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code needs to be viewed in appropriate perspective. The Respondent No. 2 could have concluded the logical conclusion in the matter of criminal case filed by the Petitioner No. 1 which was the subject matter of proceeding bang Criminal Case No. 10 of 2004 after having satisfactorily bringing the proceeding to logical end, the cause, if any, on the part of the Respondent No. 2 would have been appreciated. In the instant case this Court is of the view that lodging of FIR with Police Station alleging commission of offences which are essentially in the nature of fabricating falls documents for implicating persons in the Court itself would not be maintainable when the entire proceedings are pending before the Competent Court wherein the issue is at large. The lodgment of complaint, therefore, in my view is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and, therefore, the same is required to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The quotient of this complaint shall not in any way affect the right of the Respondent No. 2 in case if the result of the criminal case being Criminal Case No. 10 of 2004 is in his favor.

With these observations, the petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.