Yogesh Rani and Others vs Gurpreet Anand @ Neetu

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have preferred this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint No. 24/2010 dated 10.10.2009 (Annexure P-4) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 23.5.2010 (Annexure P-6). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition qua petitioner No. 1.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioner No. 1.

Learned counsel, on behalf of petitioners No. 2 and 3, has submitted that with regard to the occurrence in question, at an initial stage, complainant had only named Yogesh Rani as the person, who had inflicted injuries on her person. However, later on, petitioners No. 2 and 3, who are brother and uncle of Yogesh Rani-petitioner No. 1, have been arrayed as accused in the complaint in question. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 had, thus, been falsely involved in this case to pressurise petitioner No. 1 in the FIR got registered by her against the complainant and others.

None has appeared on behalf of respondent.

Case of the complainant, as per the complaint (Annexure P-4), in brief, is that Yogesh Rani was married to brother of the husband of the complainant. Yogesh Rani and her husband Harvinder Singh started residing separately. However, there arose a matrimonial dispute between Yogesh Rani and her husband. Consequently, Yogesh Rani filed a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against Harvinder Singh claiming maintenance. On 16.12.2008, at 9.15 A.M., when the husband of the complainant was not at home, Yogesh Rani along with petitioners No. 2 and 3 came to their house. When the complainant came out of her bed room and inquired from petitioner No. 2 as to why he was shouting loudly and why he had entered her house without permission then petitioner No. 2 caught hold of complainant from her hair and Yogesh Rani gave kick blows in the stomach of the complainant. Petitioner No. 2 gave a hockey blow on the right wrist of the complainant. Petitioner No. 3 gave a lathi blow on the right hand of the complainant. As a result of this, complainant fell on the ground and raised alarm, which attracted her mother-in-law and Rachna Sharma, her neighbourer to the spot. Accused were aware that the complainant was pregnant and with a mala fide intention they had inflicted injuries on her person. Due to this reason, complainant had lost her child.

In support of her case, complainant led her preliminary evidence. The trial Court, vide impugned order dated 23.5.2010 (Annexure P-6) ordered the summoning of the petitioners under Sections 323, 452, 506 IPC.

A perusal of Annexure P-9, copy of report No. 4 dated 18.12.2008 recorded at the instance of the complainant, reveals that she had stated therein that on 16.12.2008 at about 10.30 A.M., petitioner No. 1 started abusing her for no reason. Petitioner No. 1 caught hold of the complainant from her right hand and as a result of this, her bangles broke and she suffered injuries on her hand. Petitioner No. 1 also gave fist and kick blows in her stomach. The matter was duly inquired by the police and in FIR No. 338 dated 28.5.2009 under Sections 315 /323 /452 /506 IPC registered at Police station City Karnal, a cancellation report was submitted by the police. Gurpreet Anand filed a protest petition in the said FIR. After recording the statement of Gurpreet Anand and other witnesses, petitioners were ordered to be summoned vide order dated (Annexure P-6).

Thus, in the present case, initially complainant had got recorded her statement to the effect that she had been given fist and kick blows by Yogesh Rani. The said version was recorded on 18.12.2008. After the said complaint was investigated, cancellation report was submitted by the police and respondent filed a protest petition. In the complaint in question, complainant has levelled allegations against petitioners No. 2 and 3 also. It appears that petitioners No. 2 and 3 have been falsely involved in the case because of their relationship with Yogesh Rani and further to pressurise Yogesh Rani with regard to FIR No. 774 dated 18.12.2008 registered at police station Karnal City under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 506 IPC got registered by her against the complainant. Thus, the trial Court fell in error while summoning petitioners No. 2 and 3 to face the trial vide impugned order dated 23.5.2010 (Annexure P-6).

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 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 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 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.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioners No. 2 and 3 would be nothing but an abuse of process of law as they have been arrayed as accused in this case to pressurise Yogesh Rani qua the FIR got registered by her against the complainant and others. Accordingly, impugned summoning order dated 23.5.2010 (Annexure P-6), qua petitioners No. 2 and 3 is quashed. Consequently, the complaint in question (Annexure P-4) qua petitioners No. 2 and 3, is deemed to have been dismissed.