Rajkumar Sawlani vs State of Rajasthan and Another

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR, FIR No. 385/2010, dated 07.10.2010, registered at Police Station Dudu, District Jaipur for offence u/s 420 IPC.

The brief facts of the case are that on 07.10.2010, the complainant lodged a report at Police Station Dudu,wherein he had claimed that there is a Jasoda Devi Polytechnic College situated at Mojmabad Road, Dudu, in which around 250 students are studying who have been instigated by the Petitioner to study by deceiving them. He had further claimed that the Petitioner failed to fulfill his promise and there is lack of basic infrastructure in the college. On the basis of the said report, a FIR, FIR No. 385/2010, for offences u/s 420 IPC, was registered against the Petitioner.

It is the case of the Petitioner that the Police has submitted a negative final report before the trial court. However, even before the negative final report can be accepted, the Police has already arrested a co-accused.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently contended that once negative final report was submitted by the Police, the Police could not have reopened the case. Moreover, the Police has overstepped its jurisdiction by arresting the co-accused. Therefore, the Petitioner has a bonafide apprehension that he is also likely to be arrested in the FIR lodged by the student.

Heard the learned Counsel and perused the FIR.

In catena of cases, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the power to interfere with the FIR u/s 482 is extremely limited one. In case the FIR makes out a prima facie case against the offender, ordinarily the Court should not interfere (Referred to State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, The present case is one which does not fall under any of the seven conditions enumerated in the case of Chaudhary Bhajan Lal (Supra).

In fact, this petition is rather premature as the negative final report submitted by the Police is yet to be examined and adjudicated upon by the trial court. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has jumped the gun and has tried to argue that merely because a negative final report has been submitted by the Police, the FIR should be quashed. This logic of the Petitioner is highly misplaced. Merely because the negative final report has been submitted by the Police, it does not mean that, ipso facto, the FIR should be quashed. In fact it is for the learned trial court to consider whether it should accept or reject the negative final report submitted by the Police.

Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.