Toga Ram vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer for quashing FIR No. 165/2014 dated 3.10.2014 pertaining to Police Station Shiv, District Barmer for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 323 and 341 I.P.C.

Brief facts of the case are that one Lehri Devi wife of Shri Ram lodged a complaint before the S.H.O., Police Station Shiv, District Barmer while alleging that the petitioner No. 1 Toga Ram called her husband Shri Ram and thereafter assaulted him along with some other accused persons in front of house of Ishra Ram and on account of that her husband received several injuries and when she tried to rescue him from the accused persons, they also assaulted her and misbehaved with her.

On the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2, the police registered impugned FIR against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 354A I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated by the respondent No. 2 as they were not involved in the offences as alleged in the FIR. It is also contended that, in fact, the petitioners were rescuing the husband of the complainant, who was assaulted by some other persons and, therefore, the impugned FIR may kindly be quashed and set aside.

The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that from bare reading of the contents of FIR, prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, therefore, no interference is called for.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing an First Information Report lodged in any police station while exercising the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has held as under:-

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised 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 channelised 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 complaint, 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 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 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 not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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 a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 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 a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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 F.I.R. 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."

In a later decision the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, has reiterated the above principle.

In the instant case, after reading the contents of the FIR in question, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

In such circumstances, in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in above referred cases this Court does not find any merit in this Criminal Misc. Petition as the petitioners have failed to make out a case for quashing the FIR in question.

Hence there is no force in this Criminal Misc. Petition the same is hereby dismissed.

Stay petition is also dismissed.