Surendra And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed for quashing the FIR No.19/2019 dated

15.01.2019 registered at Police Station Pilani District Jhunjhunu for offence under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 of I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, drawing attention of this Court towards the complaint (Annexure-3) made by Smt. Raju Devi, mother of the

present petitioners against father of the complainant, submitted that the instant FIR has been lodged as a counterblast to the allegations levelled

therein. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the contents of FIR do not disclose of commission of any cognizable offence against the

petitioner and hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal writ petition. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

A bare reading of the FIR reveals commission of cognizable offence against the present petitioners. In these circumstances, contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioners that it is liable to be quashed for non-disclosure of cognizable offence, cannot be countenanced.

The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bajjoori Kanthaiah and Ors., AIR 2009 SCC 671, held as under:-

As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code 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. 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.(See: The Janata Dal etc. v. H.S. Chowdhary and others, etc. (AIR 1993 SC 892), Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar and

another (AIR 1964 SC 1)). It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to

determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be

erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of

the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious

or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open

to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should

be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/F.I.R. has to be

read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the

F.I.R. that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/F.I.R. is mala fide, frivolous or

vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an

offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and

evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and

cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding. (See : Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others (AIR 1990 SC 494), State of

Bihar and another v. P. P. Sharma, I.A.S. and another (1992 Suppl (1) SCC 222), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and

another (1995 (6) SCC 194), State of Kerala and others v. O.C. Kuttan and others (1999 (2) SCC 651), State of U.P. v. O. P. Sharma (1996 (7)

SCC705), Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997 (2) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and another (1999

(8) SCC 728), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and others AIR 1999 SC 1216), State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and another (2002 (3)

SCC 89).

Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., AIR 2008 SCC 2781, held as

under:-

30.We may reiterate and emphasise that 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 jurisdiction of

quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhury (1992) 4 SCC 305; Raghubir Saran Dr. v. State of Bihar 1964 (2) SCR

336; Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451; and Zhandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and Others v. Mohd. Sharaful

Haque and Another 2005 (1) SCC 122].

The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR has been lodged with malice to counter the allegations levelled against

father of the complainant by petitioners' mother, is wholly misconceived. The undated and unsigned complaint allegedly by mother of the petitioners is

stated to have been sent through registered post on 25.02.2019; whereas, the FIR was lodged much before, i.e., on 15.01.2019.

Even otherwise also, the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Dr. Monica Kumar (supra), held as under:-

In fact, the question of mala fides in a case like the present is not at all relevant. If the complaint which is made is correct and offence has been

committed which will have to be established in a court of law, it is of no significance that the complainant is a person who is inimical or that he is guilty

of mala fides. If the ingredients which establish the commission of the offence or misconduct exist then, the prosecution cannot fail merely because

there was an animus of the complainant or the prosecution against the accused. Allegations of mala fides may be relevant while judging the

correctness of the allegations or while examining the evidence. But the mere fact that the complainant is guilty of mala fides, would be no ground for

quashing the proceedings. [See State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri (1996) 1 SCC 542; Zhandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and Others

v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another 2005 (1) SCC 122; State of Bihar & Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldanah (1980) 1 SCC 544; State of Orissa v. Saroj

Kumar Sahoo 2005 (13) SCC 540]. There may be some exceptions to the said rule but we are not concerned with such a case.

In the aforesaid circumstances, there is not substance in this criminal writ petition, which is dismissed accordingly.