Nisar Ahmed and Another vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This Criminal Misc. Petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No. 172 dated 05.08.2013 of Police Station Marwar Junction, District Pali, for the offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2, in his complaint dated 05.08.2013, has alleged that the petitioner No. 2-Lal Singh has been treating him from last few days on telephone that why he is not executing registry in favour of the petitioner No. 1, and today at about 11:00 AM the petitioners along with other persons has assaulted him. It is also stated that in the complaint that Lal Singh was having a sword in his hand and all the accused persons have assaulted him by kicks and fists. On the basis of complaint of respondent No. 2, FIR in question is lodged.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the said FIR is lodged by the respondent No. 2 malafidely as a long standing dispute is going on between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 in relation to some property. It is also contended that no such instance has ever took place on 05.08.2013 and the respondent No. 2 has falsely lodged this report.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that bare reading of FIR constitutes a prima facie case against the petitioners.

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

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 u/s 482 Cr. P.C. and held as under:-

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 extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 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 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 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 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 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 rendered in the Hon''ble Supreme Court 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 FIR in question, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. At this stage it cannot be said that the respondent No. 2 has lodged FIR against the petitioners due to his enmity with them.

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

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

Stay petition is also dismissed.