Vijendra Dhaka vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No. 587/2014 dated 24.09.2014 of Police Station, Nokha, District Bikaner, for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 365, 382, 323, 384 and 143 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that in the impugned FIR, the complainant-respondent No. 2 has alleged that on 20.08.2014, petitioner-Vijendra Dhaka along with other persons came to his house and forcibly took him away in his Bolero Jeep. It is further alleged that the petitioner has threatened him and asked him to give an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-. It is also alleged that when the complainant-respondent No. 2 has shown his inability to pay the said amount, the petitioner took the complainant-respondent No. 2 on pistol point and threatened him to arrange the money as demanded. The complainant-respondent No. 2, thereafter, contacted to Srikishan at Delhi and asked him to arrange money in Jaipur. Srikishan arranged the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in Jaipur, which was paid to the person came on behalf of the petitioner. It is also alleged in the impugned FIR that now the petitioner is again demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- from him and, therefore, he has lodged this report. On receiving this complaint, the police has registered the impugned FIR and the matter is under investigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in fact no such incident as alleged in the impugned FIR has taken place and the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are false. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the impugned FIR the incident took place on 20.08.2014, however, the impugned FIR has been lodged on 24.09.2014 i.e. after more than one month and no explanation is offered on behalf of the complainant-respondent No. 2 to suggest the what prevented him or his father to file impugned FIR immediately. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that from long time financial transactions between the petitioner and the complainant-respondent No. 2 are going on and the complainant-respondent No. 2 is owing amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the petitioner and the complainant-respondent No. 2 has lodged false FIR only with the intention not to pay the amount to the petitioner. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the complainant-respondent No. 2, wherein the complainant-respondent No. 2 has admitted to pay the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- by 25.08.2014.

On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the impugned FIR filed by the complainant-respondent No. 2 is false and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 have argued that from bare perusal of contents of impugned FIR, prima facie case against the petitioner is made out and, therefore, no case of quashing the impugned FIR is made out and no interference is called for while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned FIR as well as the case diary.

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 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, it is true that the impugned FIR was lodged after a delay of more than one month but only on this ground, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the complainant-respondent No. 2 against the petitioner do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. At this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the impugned FIR.

In such circumstances and 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 petitioner has failed to make out a case for quashing the impugned FIR.

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

Stay petition is also dismissed.