Vijay vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the order dated 22.01.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Didwana, District Nagaur (hereinafter referred to as ''the court below''), whereby the court below has directed the police to further investigate into the allegations levelled in the FIR No. 107/2013 dated 20.08.2013 of Police Station, Didwana, District Nagaur for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the above mentioned FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that during the course of the investigation into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR, compromise has arrived at between the petitioners and the complainant-respondent No. 2 and the same has been verified by the police. Later on, an application has been filed by the complainant-respondent No. 2 for sending the matter for further investigation and the court below has passed the impugned order. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that once the matter has been compromised between the parties, the court below has erred in directing the police to further investigate into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that in fact on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. parents of the petitioner No. 1, have separated the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 and they started residing in a separate house. Later on, on account of some disputes arose between the petitioner No. 1 and the complainant-respondent No. 2, she has moved an application claiming cancellation of the compromise. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are false as the petitioners have never committed any offence punishable under Section 498-A and 406 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that complete dowry items have already been handed over to the complainant-respondent No. 2. On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 22.01.2014 passed by the court below as well as the impugned FIR.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 have opposed the prayer of the petitioners and has prayed that no case for quashing the impugned order as well as the impugned FIR is made out. It is also argued by learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 that though the petitioners have entered into the compromise with the complainant-respondent No. 2 but later on again they started harassing her and, therefore, she is forced to move application for cancellation of the compromise. It is also argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 that allegations levelled in the impugned FIR constitute prima facie case against the petitioners and, therefore, no interference is called for while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

Hon''ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and another Shri S.A. Khan, has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing 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 impugned FIR, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the complainant-respondent No. 2 against the petitioners do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. It is also noticed that earlier the parties have entered into compromise but later on when the petitioners again started harassing the complainant-respondent No. 2, she has filed application before the court below for further investigation. At this stage it cannot be said that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the impugned FIR.

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.

It is noticed that during the pendency of this criminal misc. petition, this Court vide order dated 01.10.2014 has directed the petitioners to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant-respondent No. 2. It is also noticed that one application (CRLMA No. 900/2014) is filed by the petitioner No. 4 with a prayer that the petitioner No. 1 is suffering from mental disease so direction be issued to get him medically examined and to conduct an enquiry to assess his mental condition.

As per the learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 the said cost of Rs. 10,000/- has never been paid by the petitioners and on the other hand the petitioner No. 4 (mother of the petitioner No. 1) has moved an application (CRLMA No. 900/2014) under Section 84 IPC read with Section 328 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that since the mental condition of the petitioner No. 1 is not stable, a direction be issued to get the petitioner No. 1 medically examined and to conduct enquiry regarding his mental condition.

Looking to the conduct of the petitioners, I am not inclined to allow the application (CRLMA No. 900/2014). It seems that to avoid the payment of the cost of Rs. 10,000/- the petitioner No. 4 has moved the application (CRLMA No. 900/2014) seeking direction for examination of the mental condition of the petitioner No. 1.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the application (CRLMA No. 900/2014) and this Criminal Misc. Petition are dismissed.

Stay petition stands dismissed.