Parbat Ram vs State of Rajasthan and Others

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. 403/2014 dated 06.12.2014 of Police Station, Sojat, District Pali, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the husband of the respondent No. 2 has earlier lodged a Missing Person Report at Police Station, Sojat City, District Pali on 21.11.2014. The respondent No. 2 was, thereafter, recovered on 28.11.2014 and gave her statement before the police to the effect that she went to visit her aunt''s house at her own and nobody has abducted her. Thereafter, on 05.12.2014, she filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Sojat alleging that the petitioner and other co-accused persons have abducted her and one of the accused Ramlal has committed rape upon her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR against the petitioner are false. It is contended that in view of the statement given by the respondent No. 2 before the police on 28.11.2014 in the Missing Person Report, it is clear that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are false and the petitioner has falsely been implicated, therefore, the impugned FIR may be quashed.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that from bare reading of the contents of the impugned FIR, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. It is also contended that the statement of the respondent No. 2 was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, wherein she has reiterated the allegations levelled by her in the impugned FIR against the petitioner and other co-accused persons.

The learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, contended that no case for quashing the impugned FIR is made out, hence, this criminal misc. petition deserved to be dismissed.

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

Hon''ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992) CriLJ 527 : (1990) 4 JT 650 : (1990) 2 SCALE 1066 : (1992) 1 SCC 335 Supp : (1990) 3 SCR 259 Supp 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, AIR 1996 SC 309 : (1996) CriLJ 381 : (1995) 4 Crimes 171 : (1995) 7 JT 299 : (1995) 5 SCALE 670 : (1995) 6 SCC 194 : (1995) 4 SCR 237 Supp has reiterated the above principle.

The respondent No. 2 has specifically alleged in the impugned FIR that on 20.11.2014, when she was going on the way of Sojat City road near Sikhi Hostel, the petitioner along with other accused persons came in car and asked her to sit in the car and, thereafter, they forcibly took her away to Phalodi and Jabalpur. It is also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had asked her to sign on some blank papers and when she refused to do so, he had threatened that if she would not sign the blank papers he would kill her.

In the instant case, after going through the contents of the impugned FIR as well as statement of the respondent No. 2 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the 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.