Prabhu Puri vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This Criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing FIR No. 174/2014 dated 30.9.2014 of Police Station Jayal, District Nagaur.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case as they are not involved in commission of any crime as alleged in the FIR. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant party tried to cross over the land belonging to the petitioners and when the petitioners stopped them, they assaulted the petitioners and for which a cross FIR has been lodged before the concerned Police Station. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations regarding the assault and abuses are false.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that from bare perusal of the impugned FIR, prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, therefore, no interference is called for.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing an 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 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.

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 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.