Sohan Lal vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir And & Ors

Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J

This is a petition under Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 127/2019 dated 30.07.2019 registered with the Police Station, Bishnah for offences under Section 376 of RPC.

The complainant in the complaint had alleged that the petitioner herein has forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her at about 11.00 a.m. six-seven months ago. It was alleged that the complainant had tried to approach the Police Station, Bishnah, but the accused had threatened her and in those circumstances, the applicant-complainant had approached the Court of learned Munsiff, Bishnah with an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C. pursuant to which the FIR stands registered.

The case of the petitioner is that the allegations leveled against him are absolutely false and baseless and that the petitioner was being forced to enter into a matrimonial relation with the complainant which was being refused. It is stated that the petitioner was also attacked by the villagers of village Chumbian Jattian, with a view to coerce the petitioner to enter into wedlock. It is, therefore, prayed that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are nothing but an abuse of the process of law and would severely affect the prospects of the petitioner and jeopardize his career as he is working in the SSB which is an Armed Force.

The allegation of the complainant that she was raped by the petitioner also requires to be investigated. The proceedings in the FIR cannot be quashed at the very outset on the mere allegation that the case has been registered with a view to wreck vengeance or to force the petitioner to enter into wedlock with the complainant.

The scope of interference in exercise of powers under Section 561-A is quite limited. The Court would not go into testing the correctness or truthfulness of the allegations leveled against the petitioner nor can the allegations be tested on the basis of the defence taken in the writ petition.

In R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and ors. reported in 2009 (1) SCC 516, the apex court placed reliance upon the State of Orisa and anr. v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540, wherein it was held thus:

"11. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage.

XXX XXX XXX

It is to be noted that the investigation was not complete and at that stage it was impermissible for the High Court to look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a trial Court. Even when charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate material and documents on records but it cannot appreciate evidence. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. In Chand Dhawan v. Jawahar Lal, [(1992) 3 SCC 317], it was observed that when the materials relied upon by a party are required to be proved, no inference can be drawn on the basis of those materials to conclude the complaint to be unacceptable. The Court should not act on annexures to the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved."

In Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U. P., (2008) 9 SCALE 166, it was held:

"36. ......The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage."

In paragraph 15 of the judgment in R. Kalyani's case, the following propositions of law were crystallized:

(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a First Information Report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.

(2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.

(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.

(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.

Considering the ratio of the aforementioned judgments, in my view, the present case does not fall in any of the exceptions prescribed by the apex Court in the aforementioned cases.

Be that as it may, this petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is hoped that the investigating agency will investigate the matter in impartial manner to arrive at the truth.