Prabhulal @ Pappu vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR No. 582/2019 dated 17.11.2019 registered at Police Station Hindoli,

District Bundi lodged by complainant respondent for the offence under Section 19/54, Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950.

Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is quite innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The godown was given on

rent by the petitioner to the licence holder Manbhar Devi. Liquor was not being sold by him at the site of godown still the case has been registered

with ulterior motive and the investigation is not being conducted in a fair manner. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed and impugned FIR be

quashed.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs Bhajan Lal and Others: 1992 (supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down the following

guide lines for quashing of FIR, which read 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 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 myraid kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

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;

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;

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;

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 a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

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;

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;

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 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 and caprice.

Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, suffice it to note that as per FIR itself the petitioner Prabhulal was found selling liquor without

any license. The investigation is going on, no condition for quashing the FIR has been fulfilled. Hence, this court is not inclined to quash the FIR.

However, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised doubts regarding fairness of investigation, therefore, it is made clear that the petitioner may

submit an appropriate representation containing all his grounds before the Investigating Officer or higher officers for their consideration to ensure fair

investigation in the matter.

With the above mentioned observations, the petition stands disposed of.