Shri Parminder Lall vs The State

Dipak Saha Ray, J.—The present case arises out of an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the criminal proceedings of GR case No 3369 of 2010 arising out of Pahargaon Police Station case No 320 of 2010 dated 26.11.2010 u/s 354/323/504 of Indian Penal Code. The grievances of the petitioner may briefly be stated as follows:-

The opposite party herein as de facto complainant lodged FIR with the Pahargaon Police Station alleging therein inter alia that the de facto complainant had been residing with her husband and children in the rented accommodation at Bhathubasthi under the land-lord Joginder Lall. She also used to run a clinic in the name and style ''Family Clinic'' in her said rented room. On 26.11.2010 at around 10.30 hours when she was attending a patient, one Perminder Lall, the son of the land lord came to her clinic and asked her to vacate the room immediately. At that time he used slang language and slapped her on her cheek and outraged her modesty by pulling her hand. It is further alleged that at that time the land lord of that room i.e., the father of the accused was present at the spot. On the basis of such information Pahargaon Police Station case No. 320 of 2010 dated 26.11.2010 u/s 354/ 323/504 of the Indian Penal Code was started. Police took up investigation of the case and after completion of investigation submitted report in final form u/s 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that initially the case was registered u/s 323/354/504 of the Indian Penal Code. But during investigation as no material in respect of offences u/s 354/323 of the Indian Penal Code was found, report in final form in respect of section 504 of the Indian Penal Code was filed. It is further pointed out that at time of registration of the case before the Police, no ingredient of offence u/s 504 of the Indian Penal Code was disclosed in the First Information Report. FIR only disclosed that the accused used slang language, but the said fact was not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable u/s 504 of the Indian Penal Code and as such the proceedings of the concerned GR case is required to be quashed. It is further submitted that there is civil dispute between the parties and in order to harass the petitioner, the opposite party as de facto complainant initiated the said case falsely.

The learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the investigating officer during investigation collected evidence and materials in support of the allegation of the petitioner and accordingly he has submitted Charge Sheet. It is further argued that the point for adjudication is weather mere use of slang language will constitute any offence publishable u/s 504 of Indian Penal Code and this fact finding can only be made at the time of trial by taking evidence. In such circumstances, it is submitted, when a Prima facie case has been established against the present petitioner, the proceedings of the concerned GR case should not be quashed.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, i) to give effect to an order under the code, ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and in rare cases. This inherent power is not the rule but it is an exception which is applied when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed.

In the instant revisional application no averment is made disclosing that there is civil dispute between the parties or that any civil suit is pending between them.

Moreover, when the allegations made in the FIR Prima facie discloses the offence alleged and after investigation a prima facie case is made out then FIR or charge sheet cannot be quashed on the ground that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature or civil remedy is available.

It has to be borne in mind that while considering the application for quashing the charge sheet, the allegations made in the FIR and the materials collected during the course of the investigation are required to be considered.

In the instant case, after completion of investigation report in final form has been submitted meaning thereby that during investigation a prima facie case has been made out against the present petitioner. The allegation in the FIR that slang language was used. So whether using slang language will constitute any offence u/s 504 of the Indian Penal Code is the subject matter of the trial; because without taking evidence it is not possible for the Court to ascertain as to whether or not any abusive language was used by the accused and if so used, whether such language could provoke him to break the public peace or to commit any offence. So at this stage it cannot be said that the accused used abusive language without the knowledge and/ or intention that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.

The allegations set out in the FIR constitute criminal offence and that during investigation prima facie it is found that the accused has committed offence publishable u/s 504 of the Indian Penal Code. In the above circumstances it would not be just and proper for this court to interfere at this stage by invoking the inherent power u/s 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure when the Investigating Agency has come to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.

In view of the above facts and circumstances it appears that the instant application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly the instant CRR No. 003 of 2013 is dismissed on contest and in the nature and background of the case without costs.

It appears that the instant case is pending since 2010. Considering period of pendency of this case with reference to the nature of the alleged offence, the learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to dispose of the concerned GR case as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order. Upon appropriate application (s) being made, urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions.