Suresh Kumar and Others vs State of Haryana and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the protest petition dated

25.11.2008 (Annexure P-10) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 11.3.2010 (Annexure P-

14) in the protest petition, filed against the cancellation report submitted by the investigating agency, arising out of FIR No. 79 dated 16.4.2006 u/s

406, 498-A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'' for short), registered at Police Station Indri, District Karnal. Learned counsel for the petitioner

has submitted that Ashwani Kumar (since deceased) was married to Sanjana (respondent No. 2) on 1.12.2002. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the

parents of Ashwani Kumar and petitioner No. 3 is the brother of Ashwani Kumar. On 24.5.2006, Ashwani Kumar committed suicide. He left a

suicide note that his wife was responsible qua his death. FIR No. 23 dated 24.3.2006 was registered against respondents No. 2 and others u/s

306/34 IPC. As a counter blast to the same, respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR in question against the petitioners. After investigation of the case,

cancellation report was submitted by the police. However, respondent No. 2 filed a protest petition to the said cancellation report and petitioners

were ordered to be summoned.

Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that respondent No. 2 was falsely involved in this case on the allegations that Ashwani

Kumar had committed suicide at her instance. Respondent No. 2 had been acquitted in the case registered against her u/s 306 IPC.

In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , the Apex Court has held as under:-

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers

u/s 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court 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 chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae

and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No. 2, 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.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,

justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of

the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the

commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) 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 Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.

(5) 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.

(6) 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 specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,

providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings 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 or caprice.

Admittedly, in the present case, deceased Ashwani Kumar was married to respondent No. 2. Petitioners are the parents and brother of

deceased Ashwani Kumar. There is also no dispute that FIR No. 23 dated 24.3.2006 was registered against respondent No. 2 after Ashwani

Kumar committed suicide. The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners on 16.4.2006 after criminal case

was registered against her qua suicide committed by Ashwani Kumar. Apparently, FIR in question had been lodged as a counter blast to the FIR

got registered against respondent no. 2 at the instance of petitioner No. 1. Admittedly, respondent No. 2 has been acquitted in the criminal case

registered against her. After thorough investigation of the case, in the present case prosecution had presented cancellation report. The Trial Court

while passing the impugned summoning order dated 11.3.2010 (Annexure P-14) has failed to appreciate the fact that it was evident that FIR in

question had been filed as a counter blast to the criminal case got registered by petitioner No. 1 against respondent No. 2. In these circumstances,

continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

The summoning order dated 11.3.2010 (Annexure P-14) is set aside. Consequently, the cancellation report is deemed to have been accepted.