Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ratika And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 12 May, 2017
1
jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj ihB] t;iqj
ORDER
S.B.Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 3915 / 2016
1. Ratika wife of Sh. Abhishek Ojha D/o Sh. Uma
Shankar Joshi aged 26 Years, r/o Narsinghgarh, Distt.
Rajgarh (M.P.).
2. Smt. Kratika wife of sh. Dr. Ashwani aged about 28
years, R/o Flat No. 302, Kirshna Apartment, 405, Alok
Nagar, Kanodia Road, Indore (M.P.).
3. Dr. Ashwani Saxena son of Sh. Raghunandan Saxena
R/o Flat No. 302, Krishna Apartment 405, Alok Nagar,
Kanodia Road, Indore (M.P.).
----Accused/Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
2. Ajeet Kumar Ojha son of Sh. Gopal Swaroop Ojha R/o
H.No. 56, Nivedita Path, Vivekanand Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
----Complainant/Respondent
REPORTABLE vkns'k fnukad % 12-05-2017 ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifr Jh cuokjhyky 'kekZ Jh vjfoUn dqekj xqIrk] vf/koDrk&;kphx.k dh vksj lsA Jh ,u ,l /kkdM] yksd vfHk;kstdA Jh lqjs'k lkguh rFkk Jh lq/khj tSu] vf/koDrkx.k& v;kph la[;k&2 dh vksj lsA ;kphx.k vfHk;qDrx.k jfrdk] Jherh d`frdk rFkk MkW0 v'ouh lDlsuk us ;g ;kfpdk /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr izLrqr dj muds fo:) iqfyl Fkkuk 'kkL=huxj] t;iqj ¼mRrj½ esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 170@2016 ¼,usDlj&1½ vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 306 Hkk-na-la- ds vuqlj.k esa izLrqr pktZ'khV ,usDlj&5 ,oa pktZ'khV ij U;k;ky; vfrfjDr eq[; egkuxj eftLVªsV dze&11] t;iqj egkuxj }kjk 2 ;kph vfHk;qDr v'ouh lDlsuk ds fo:) ikfjr izlaKku vkns'k fnukad 27-08-2016 ¼,usDlj&6½ vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 306 rFkk 120ch Hkk-na-la- ,oa ;kphx.k vfHk;qDrx.k jfrdk ,oa Jherh d`frdk ds fo:) ikfjr izlaKku vkns'k fnukad 26-10-2016 ¼,usDlj&7½ tks fd vkijkf/kd izdj.k la[;k 1261@2016 esa ikfjr fd;s x;s gaS] dks fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA izdj.k ds laf{kIr rF; bl izdkj gSa fd v;kph la[;k&2 ifjoknh vthr dqekj vks>k us fnukad 27-05-2016 dks iqfyl Fkkuk 'kkL=huxj] t;iqj ¼mRrj½ esa ,d fjiksVZ Fkkukf/kdkjh ds le{k bl vk'k; dh izLrqr dh fd& ^^fuosnu gS fd esjk yMdk vfHk"ksd vks>k MsfUVl FkkA ftldh futh Dyhfud >wysyky ekdsZV] >ksVokMk esa jatuk MsfUVy Dyhfud ds uke ls gSA esjs iq= dk fookg fnukad 22-02-2016 dks Jherh jfrdk ds lkFk fgUnw jhfr fjokt ls 'ks[kkokVh dsUnz t;iqj ls gqbZ FkhA Jherh jfrdk ds ifjokjtu ewy :i ls ujflagxat ftyk jktx< ¼e/;izns'k½ ds jgus okys gSaA jfrdk dh cMh cfgu d`frdk o mlds thtk vf'ou lDlsuk gSa ,oa mlds ekrk Jherh T;ksfr ,oa firk Jh mek'kadj tks'kh gSaA 'kknh ds ckn djhc ,d ekg gekjs ?kj lh&Ldhe esa gekjs lkFk o yMds ds lkFk jghA mlds ckn oks vius ihgj pyh xbZA ihgj tkus ls iwoZ jkstkuk esjs yMds ds lkFk >xMk djrh Fkh o >waBs ykaNu yxkdj >xMk djrh FkhA viuh futh thou dh ckrsa thtk dks crkdj esjs yMds dks izrkfMr djrh FkhA fnukad 14-04-2016 dks esjs yMds ds >ksVokMk fLFkr Dyhfud ij Hkh >waBs ykaNu yxkdj mlds lkFk >xMk fd;k ,oa esjs yMds dks lftZdy baLVªwesaV ls xys o gkFk ij xaHkhj pksV igaqpkdj tku ysus dh dksf'k'k dhA vfHk"ksd ds vius cpko ds nkSjku jfrdk ds Dyhfud ls Hkkxus ds nkSjku jfrdk ds Hkh pksV vkbZaA mu nksuksa dk bZykt geus nhi gkWLihVy] [kkrhiqjk jksM] >ksVokMk esa djok;kA ?kVuk dh tkudkjh jfrdk ds ifjokjtu dks nsus ij mlds firk] thtk ,oa cgu vkbZaA mu yksxksa ds lkeus nksuksa dk bZykt gqvk o bu yksxksa us ge ij ncko cukdj LVkEi ij jkthukek djus ds fy, dgk ysfdu jkthukek ikfjokfjd le>cw> ls ncko esa gks x;k o /kedh Hkh nh fd ;fn gekjs i{k esa c;ku ugha fy[ks rks ge vkids f[kykQ ngst dk dsl yxok;saxsA blds i'pkr oks vius ihgj pyh x;hA ihgj tkus ds i'pkr jkstkuk esjs csVs dks Qksu ij jfrdk o mlds thtk vf'ou ,oa cMh cgu d`frdk }kjk dsl esa Qalkus dh /kedh nsdj izrkfMr djuk 'kq: dj fn;kA o esjs iq= vfHk"ksd dks bruh ekufld ;kruk,a nh fd mls vkRegR;k djus ij etcwj dj fn;kA vkt budh ;krukvksa dh otg ls esjk iq= bl nqfu;k esa ugha jgkA buds 3 f[kykQ l[r dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djsaA esjs iq= }kjk lqlkbZM uksV Hkh fy[k dj NksMk x;k gSA tks eSaus ewy gh layXu fd;k gSA esjk iq= esjs fe= ds ?kj lqHkk"k dkWyksuh 'kkL=huxj esa edku ua- 111 esa vk;k gqvk Fkk] ogh ij mlus vkRegR;k dj yhA^^ mDr fjiksVZ ij iqfyl Fkkuk 'kkL=huxj] t;iqj esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 170@2016 vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 306 Hkk-na-la- esa ntZ dj vuqla/kku izkjEHk fd;k x;kA ckn vuqla/kku fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; vij eq[; egkuxj eftLVªsV dze&11] t;iqj egkuxj esa ;kph vfHk;qDr v'ojh lDlsuk ds fo:) /kkjk 306 Hkk-na-la- lifBr /kkjk 120ch Hkk-na-la- ds vijk/k esa fnukad 27-08-2016 dks vkjksi i= is'k fd;k] ftl ij v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us mijksDr /kkjkvksa esa izlaKku ysdj vuU; :i ls ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k }kjk fopkj.kh; gksus ds dkj.k izdj.k dks mlh jkst /kkjk 209 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] t;iqj egkuxj dks dfeV dj fn;kA rRi'pkr fnukad 26-10-2016 dks iqu% frrEck pktZ'khV ;kphx.k vfHk;qDrx.k jfrdk rFkk Jherh d`frdk ds fo:) /kkjk 306] 120ch Hkk-na-la- ds vijk/k esa is'k dh] ftl ij Hkh fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us fnukad 26-10-2016 dks mijksDr /kkjkvksa esa izlaKku ysdj dehVy cgl ds fy, fnukad 04-11-2016 dks fu;r dhA izdj.k orZeku esa vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] dze&16] t;iqj egkuxj esa fopkjk/khu gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kphx.k Jh vjfoUn dqekj xqIrk us fuosnu fd;k gS fd bl izdj.k esa v;kph la[;k&2 ifjoknh] e`rd vfHk"ksd dk firk gS] ds }kjk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djk;h x;h gSA ;kph vfHk;qDr la[;k&1] e`rd dh iRuh] ;kph la[;k&2 e`rd dh lkyh rFkk ;kph la[;k&3 e`rd dk lkMw gsA mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k gS fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ iqfyl us /kkjk 306 Hkk-na-la- ds vijk/k esa ntZ dh gS] ijUrq /kkjk 306 Hkk-na-la- ds rRo izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF;ksa ls dgha izdV ugha gksrs gSaA /kkjk 306 Hkk-na-la- ds vijk/k ds fy, /kkjk 107 Hkk-na-la- esa ifjHkkf"kr vkRegR;k ds fy, nq"izsj.k ds rRo gksuk vko';d gS] ftudk gLrxr izdj.k esa iw.kZ vHkko gSA mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k gS fd vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh us e`rd ds lqlkbZM uksV dks vkjksi i= dk vk/kkj cuk;k gS] ijUrq lqlkbZM uksV ls vkRegR;k ds fy, nq"izsj.k izdV ugha gksrk gS rFkk uk gh vuqla/kku esa ladfyr lk{; ls nq"izsj.k ds 4 dksbZ rRo izdV gksrs gSaA fQj Hkh iqfyl us tks vkjksi i= is'k fd;k gS] ml ij fopkj fd;s fcuk gh fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us /kkjk 306 rFkk 120ch Hkk-na-la- ds vijk/k esa izlaKku ysdj =qfV dh gSA mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k gS fd tc izFken`"V;k vijk/k ds rRo izdV ugha gksrs gSa rks ml ifjfLFkfr esa izdj.k dk fopkj.k ;Fkkor j[kuk vfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk csekuh gksxk rFkk ;g U;k;ky; /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx dj bl izdkj ds izdj.k esa U;kf;d izfdz;k dks jksdrs gq, vkijkf/kd izdj.k dh dk;Zokgh dks lekIr djus ds fy, l{ke gSA mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k gS fd /kkjk 306 rFkk 107 Hkk-na-la- ds vuqlkj vkRegR;k ds fy, rqjUr nq"izsj.k vko';d gSA gLrxr izdj.k esa Lohd`r :i ls ;kph la[;k&1 vfHk;qDrk tks fd e`rd dh iRuh gS] og fnukad 14-04-2016 dks e`rd ds ikl ls vius ekrk&firk ds ikl t;iqj ls bankSj pyh x;h FkhA rRi'pkr mldk e`rd ls dksbZ lEidZ ugha jgk gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa VsyhQksu ij /kefd;ka nsuk crk;k gS] ijUrq bl laca/k esa dkWy fMVsy izkIr ugha gqbZ gSA vkRegR;k ds rqjUr iwoZ nq"izsj.k gksus ds vk/kkj ij izFken`"V;k vkjksfir vijk/k ugha ekuk tk ldrkA fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kphx.k us vius rdksaZ ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d n`"VkUr is'k fd;s%& (1) Mahendra Singh and Anr. vs. State of M.P. 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731; (2) Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Anr. 1995 Supp.(3)SCC438; (3) Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattishgarh, AIR 2001 SC 3837; (4) Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2002 CriLJ2796;
(5) Devender Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2009 (16) SCC 396; (6) S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr. JT 2010(8) SC 331; (7) M. Mohan vs. State, Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Velmurugan and Anr. vs. State, Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police AIR 2011 SC 1238;
(8) Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2017(1) SCC 433; (9) Heera Lal and Ors. State of Rajasthan, Crimnial Appeal No 790/2017 tks fd ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 24-04-2017 dks fu.khZr dh x;h gSA (10) Ashok Chaturvedi and Others vs. Shitul H. Chanchani and another AIR 1998 SC 2796;
(11) Alka Grewal vs. State of M.P. 2000 CRI. L.J. 672 5 mDr rdksaZ dk fojks/k djrs gq, v;kph la[;k&2 ifjoknh dh vksj ls fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k Jh lqjs'k lkguh rFkk Jh lq/khj tSu us fuosnu fd;k gS fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa lkf{k;ksa ds dFkuksa esa tks rF; vk;s gSa] mlds vuqlkj ;kph vfHk;qDrk la[;k&1 tks fd e`rd dh iRuh gS] dks e`rd us ;kph la[;k&3 ds lkFk vkifRrtud voLFkk esa ns[k fy;k FkkA ;kph la[;k&2 vkSj 3 ds lkFk ;kph la[;k&1 ifr&iRuh dh xksiuh; ckrsa 'ks;j djrh Fkh] ftlds dkj.k ;kph la[;k&2 o 3] ;kph la[;k&1 dks mRizsfjr rFkk nq"izsfjr dj e`rd dks tyhy djrs FksA ;gh ugha e`rd tks fd ,d nUr fpfdRld Fkk] tks viuk gh Dyhfud pykrk Fkk] ds Dyhfud esa mlds ejhtksa ds lkeus gh mls tyhy djrh FkhA ,d ckj rks mlus e`rd dks nUr fpfdRlk ds vkStkjksa ls ?kk;y dj fn;k rFkk mlds xys ij xaHkhj pksVsa Hkh igqapk;ha FkhA e`rd ds vius cpko ds nkSjku ;kph la[;k&1 Dyhfud ls Hkkx x;h Fkh rFkk Hkkxus ds nkSjku mlds Hkh pksV vk;ha FkhaA nksuksa dks nhi gkWLihVy] >ksVokMk esa bZykt gsrq HkrhZ djk;k FkkA ogka ij Hkh ;kph la[;k&1 dh xyrh gksus ds ckotwn vfHk;qDrx.k vkSj muds ifjokjtu us e`rd vkSj mlds ekrk&firk ds Åij >waBk ykaNu yxkdj mUgsa tyhy rFkk VkpZj fd;k rFkk tcju >waBs ngst ds eqdnes esa Qalkus dh /kedh nsdj v;kph la[;k&2 ls LVkEi isij ij fy[kki<h djkus dk ncko cuk;kA rRi'pkr ;kph la[;k&1 bankSj pyh x;h] ysfdu ogka ls Hkh e`rd dks ckj&ckj VkpZj djrh FkhA mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k gS fd /kkjk 107 Hkk-na-la- ds vijk/k esa vkRegR;k ds fy, nq"izsj.k dks ifjHkkf"kr fd;k x;k gSA mlds izdk'k esa ;fn gLrxr izdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa dks ns[kk tkos rks ekeyk ifr&iRuh dk gS vkSj iRuh }kjk vius ifr dks ckj&ckj VkpZj djuk] tyhy djuk] mlds O;olkf;d LFky ij tkdj mlds is'ksUV ds lkeus mldks csbZTtr djuk] mlds Åij geyk djuk rFkk >waBs ngst ds eqdnes esa Qalkus dh /kedh nsus] rRi'pkr fcuk fdlh vk/kkj ij ngst dk >waBk eqdnek ntZ djok nsuk vkRegR;k ds fy, nq"izsj.k dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k gS fd ftl jkst e`rd us vkRegR;k dh] ml jkst dh d`R; vkSj iwoZ ds d`R;ksa dks ,dlkFk ns[kk tkos rks lkewfgd :i ls vkRegR;k ds fy, nq"izsj.k gh ekuk tkosxk D;ksafd iwoZ esa ;kphx.k us ngst dk >waBk eqdnek ntZ djokus dh /kedh nh] 6 mls tyhy fd;k rFkk mlds ckn bankSj esa tkdj vkijkf/kd izdj.k dh f'kdk;r dj nhA ftldh rkbZn esa iqfyl uksfVl Hkst fn;k vkSj mlds rqjUr ckn e`rd us vkRegR;k dj yhA mUgksaus ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k gS fd e`rd vius ekrk&firk ds ikl jgrk Fkk] ogka ij Hkh mldk jguk nwHkj dj fn;k] bl dkj.k mls vius fe= ds lkFk tkdj jguk iMk rFkk ogka tc mls tkudkjh esa vk;k fd mlds fo:) eqdnek ntZ djk fn;k gS rks nwljs fnu mlus vkRegR;k dj yhA vr% ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd vkRegR;k vfHk;qDrx.k ds d`R; o nq"izsj.k ds dkj.k ugha dh gSA mUgksaus ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k gS fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ gksus ds ckn pktZ'khV is'k gks pqdh gSA rnuqlkj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ] pktZ'khV esa lekfgr gks pqdh gS vkSj pktZ'khV ds ckn izlaKku vkns'k ikfjr gks pqdk gSA rnuqlkj pktZ'khV] izlaKku vkns'k esa lekfgr gks pqdh gS rFkk izlaKku vkns'k ds fo:) /kkjk 397 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr fuxjkuh ;kfpdk is'k djus dk oSdfYid mipkj ;kphx.k ds ikl gS] ijUrq mUgksaus oSdfYid mipkj dk mi;ksx ugha dj bl U;k;ky; ds le{k /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr ;g ;kfpdk is'k dh gS tks iks"k.kh; ugha gSA mUgksaus ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k gS fd /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr ;kfpdk dk fuLrkj.k djrs gq, U;k;ky; dks iqfyl vuqla/kku ds le; ladfyr leLr lkexzh dk lw{e foospu ugha djuk pkfg,A ;g fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj gS fd og fopkj.k dh LVst ij vfHk;qDr dks lqudj mfpr vkns'k ikfjr djs vkSj ;fn fopkj.k cuuk ik;k tkrk gS rks izdj.k dk fopkj.k djsaA fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa bl U;k;ky; dks /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx dj rc rd gLr{ksi ugh djuk pkfg, tc rd fd U;kf;d izfdz;k dk nq:i;ksx u gksA fo}ku vf/koDRkk v;kph la[;k&2 ifjoknh us vius rdksaZ ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d n`"VkUr is'k fd;s%& (1) Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Another 2012(9) SCC 460; (2) Tejender Pal Singh Sahni Alias Rimpy vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. tks fd bl U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 18-11-2016 dks fu.khZr dh x;h gS rFkk (3) Rashmi Kumar (Smt) vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada 1997(2) SCC 397 fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd Jh ,u ,l /kkdM us Hkh v;kph la[;k&2 7 ifjoknh ds vf/koDRkk Jh lkguh ds rdksaZ dk leFkZu djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k gS fd izdj.k esa /kkjk 306 rFkk 120ch Hkk-na-la- dk vijk/k izekf.kr ik;k x;k gS rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk mlesa izlaKku Hkh fy;k tk pqdk gSA vr% vkijkf/kd izdj.k dh dk;Zokgh dks lekIr fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA mUgksaus ;kfpdk vLohdkj fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA lquk x;k] mHk; i{k ds rdksaZ ij fopkj fd;k x;kA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us Mahendra Singh and Anr. vs. State of M.P. ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa vihykFkhZ vfHk;qDr dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk 306 Hkk-na-la- ds vijk/k esa nks"kfl) dj nf.Mr fd;k FkkA ftlds fo:) vihy esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd e`rd ds dFkuksa ds vykok vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) nq"izsj.k ds laca/k esa vU; dksbZ lk{; ugha gS ftlls vkRegR;k ds fy, nq"izsfjr djuk lkfcr gksrk gks vkSj e`rd ds dFkuksa ls Hkh vkRegR;k ds fy, nq"izsj.k ds rRo vkd`"V ugha gksus ds dkj.k vihy Lohdkj dh tkdj vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 306 Hkk-na-la- ds vijk/k ls nks"keqDr fd;k gSA ;g izdj.k nks"kflf) ds ckn dk gS] tcfd gLrxr izdj.k esa vHkh nks"kfl)h ugha gqbZ gSA nks"kfl)h dh LVst ij lk{; dk lw{e foospu fd;k tkrk gS tks gLrxr izdj.k esa visf{kr ugha gSA vr% ;g U;kf;d n`"VkUr ;kphx.k dh dksbZ enn ugha djrk gSA Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Anr. ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "At the time of framing of charge, the trial court thought it appropriate to associate the appellant herein as an accused because of the words he uttered to the deceased. We think that just on the basis of that utterance the Court of Session was in error in summoning the appellant to face trial.
In the first place it is difficult, in the facts and circumstances, to come to even a prima facie view that what was uttered by the appellant was enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. Besides the deceased had plenty of time to weigh the pros and cons of the 8 act by which he ultimately ended his life. It cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the words uttered by the appellant."
ijUrq gLrxr izdj.k esa flQZ 'kCnksa ds vykok ifr&iRuh dk fookn] iRuh dk mlds thtk ds lkFk vkifRrtud fLFkfr esa ns[kuk] thtk vkSj iRuh dh cfgu }kjk e`rd dh iRuh dks nq"izsfjr dj ckj ckj vius ifr dks tyhy djus] ml ij geyk djus dk vkjksi gSA vr% bl U;kf;d n`"VkUr ds rF; gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k ;kph dh dksbZ enn ugha djrk gSA Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattishgarh ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa Hkh ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ,l,yih esa lk{; dk foLr`r o lw{e foospu djrs gq, vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd e`rd dh Mk;jh esa tks uksV Fkk og vkRegR;k ds fy, nq"izsfjr djus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha Fkk] tcfd gLrxr izdj.k esa vHkh nks"kfl)h ugha gqbZ gSA vr% lk{; dk bruk lw{e foospu fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha gSA Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa e`rd dks vihykFkhZ vfHk;qDr us dg fn;k Fkk fd ^^tk ej tk^^ ftl ij ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd vkRegR;k ds fy, nq"izsfjr djus ds fy, Mens-rea vko';d gS] ftldk vHkko gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij /kkjk 107 Hkk-na-la- ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr nq"izsj.k ugha ekuk gSA ijUrq gLrxr izdj.k ds rF; U;kf;d n`"VkUr ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k ;kph dh dksbZ enn ughadjrk gSA D;ksafd gLrxr izdj.k esa [kkyh 'kCn gh ugha gSa] cfYd d`R; Hkh fd;s x;s gSaA Devender Singh Vs. State of Haryana ¼mijksDr½ dk izdj.k Hkh nks"kfl)h ds ckn dk gS rFkk lk{; ds lw{e foospu ls lacaf/kr gS tks gLrxr izdj.k esa visf{kr ugha gSA vr% ;g U;kf;d n`"VkUr ;kph dh enn ugha djrk gSA S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr. ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us fopkj djrs gq, vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The 9 intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
ftlesa dksbZ fookn ugha gSA M. Mohan vs. State, Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Velmurugan and Anr. vs. State, Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
ftlesa dksbZ fookn ugha gSA Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Punjab ¼mijksDr½ rFkk Heera Lal and Ors.
State of Rajasthan ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k nks"kfl)h ls lacaf/kr gS] ftuesa lk{; dk lw{e foospu fd;k x;k gS tks fd gLrxr izdj.k esa visf{kr ugha gSA Ashok Chaturvedi and Others vs. Shitul H. Chanchani and another ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "It has been held in a number of cases that power under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly and in the interest of justice. But allowing the criminal proceeding to continue even where the allegations in the complaint petition do not make out any offence would be tantamount to an abuse of the process of court, and therefore, there cannot be any dispute that in such case power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised.
10Bearing in mind the parameters laid down by this Court in several decisions for exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, we have examined the allegations made in the complaint petition and the statement of the complainant and the two other witnesses made on oath before the Magistrate. We are clearly of the opinion that the necessary ingredients of any of the offence have not been made out so far as the appellants are concerned. The petition of complaint is a vague one and excepting the bald allegation that the shares of the complainant have been transferred on the forged signatures, nothing further has been started and there is not an iota of material to indicate how all or any of these appellants are involved in the so-called allegation of forgery. The statement of the complainant on oath as well as his witnesses do not improve the position in any manner, and therefore, in our considered opinion even if the allegations made in the complaint petition and the statement of complaint and his witnesses are taken on their face value, the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been made out. This being the position the impugned order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence dated 5.2.1996 so far as it relates the appellants are concerned cannot be sustained and the High Court also committed error in not invoking its power under Section 482 of the Code. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the Magistrate dated 5.2.96 taking cognizance of the offence as against the appellants stand quashed."
Alka Grewal vs. State of M.P. ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa e`rd ifr us vius lqlkbZM uksV esa iRuh ds nq"pfj= dk dFku fd;k Fkk] ftl ij e/;izns'k mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us ekuk gS fd iRuh ds fo:) vkRegR;k ds nq"izsj.k ds fy, ;g lqlkbZM uksV i;kZIr ugha gS] ftleas dksbZ fookn ugha gSA ijUrq gLrxr izdj.k esa tks rF; vk;sa gSa mlds vuqlkj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa Lo;a e`rd dk fookg ;kph la[;k&1 ds lkFk fnukad 22-02-2016 dks gksuk vk;k gS rFkk fookg ds ckn ;kph la[;k&1 flQZ ,d ekg rd vius ifr ds lkFk jgh gS] fQj ihgj pyh x;h rFkk ml ,d ekg dh vof/k esa gh lkf{k;ksa ds dFkuksa ds vuqlkj og vius ifr ds lkFk jkst 11 >xMk djrh] >waBs ykaNu yxkrh] ifr&iRuh dh xksiuh; ckrsa vius thtk dks crkdj e`rd dks izrkfMr djrh FkhA fnukad 14-04-2016 dks vFkkZr fookg ds rqjUr i'pkr e`rd tks fd nUr fpfdRld Fkk] mlds Dyhfud] >ksVokMk esa >waBs ykaNu yxkrs gq, lftZdy baLVªwesaV ls xys ij xaHkhj pksV igapkrs gq, tku ls ekjus dh dksf'k'k dha bl ?kVuk dh tkudkjh ;kph la[;k&1 ds ifjokjtu dks nsus ij mlds firk] thtk vkSj cfgu vk;s vkSj mu yksxksa ds lkeus bZykt gqvk vkSj e`rd o mlds ifjtuksa ij ncko cukdj LVkEi ij jkthukek djus ds fy, dgk tks fd ikfjokfjd le>cw> ls gks x;k rFkk ;g /kedh nsus dk vkjksi yxk;k gS fd gekjs i{k esa c;ku ugha nksxs rks ge vkidks >waBs eqdnes esa Qalk nsaxsA mlds ckn ;kph la[;k&1 ihgj pyh x;hA lkf{k;ksa ds dFkuksa esa ;g rF; Hkh vk;k gS fd ihgj tkus ds i'pkr jkstkuk e`rd dks Qksu ij ;kphx.k vfHk;qDrx.k e`rd dks >waBs ngst ds dsl esa Qalkus dh /kedh nsdj izrkfMr djuk 'kq: dj fn;kA ckn esa ,d >waBk dsl Hkh bankSj esa ntZ djok fn;k vkSj ftldh lwpuk e`rd dks izkIr gksus ij mlus nwljs fnu gh vkRegR;k dj yhA vkRegR;k ls iwoZ e`rd us tks lqlkbZM uksV NksMk gS] mleas Hkh ;kph la[;k&1 Lo;a dh iRuh] ;kph la[;k&2 o 3] ;kph la[;k&1 dh cfgu vkSj thtk ds fo:) Li"V :i ls vkjksi yxk;k gS fd ^^rqe yksxksa dk esUVyh VkWpZj vc lgu ugh gksrk gS] rqedks ekQ ugha d:axkA ;kph la[;k&1 ij Li"V :i ls vkjksi yxk;k gS fd rqe muds ¼;kph la[;k&2 o 3½ ds cgdkos esa vkdj esjk vkSj vkidh ykbZQ lekIr dj yh^^A Rashmi Kumar (Smt) vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dh o`gn ihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "The sequences that followed were that she filed another case for restitution of conjugal rights and an application for maintenance and thereafter she filed the complaint under Section 406, IPC. A fair reading of the averments would clearly indicate that a prima facie case of entrustment of the jewellery and the household goods had been made out. The learned Judge was not right in jumping to the conclusion that the averments made by the respondent in the counter-affidavit disclosed that no entrustment was made of the jewellery, cash and household goods and other movables enumerated in Annexures I and II details of which are not material for our purpose. In the light of 12 the above, we are of the view that a prima facie case of entrustment had been made out by the appellant as the stridhana properties were not returned to her by the husband. Obviously, therefore, the learned Magistrate, having taken cognizance of the offence, had issued process for appearance of the respondent. It is fairly settled legal position that at the time of taking cognisance of the offence, the Court has to consider only the averments made in the complaint or in the charge-sheet filed under Section 173, as the case may be. It was held in State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164] that it is not open for the Court to sift or appreciate the evidence at that stage with reference to the material and come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out for proceeding further in the matter. It is equally settled law that it is open to the Court, before issuing the process, to record the evidence and on consideration of the averments made in the complaint and the evidence thus adduced, it is required to find out whether an offence has been made out. On finding that such an offence has been made out and after taking cognizance thereof, process would be issued to the respondent to take further steps in the matters. If it is a charge-sheet filed under Section 173 of the Code, the facts stated by the prosecution in the charge-sheet, on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation, would disclose the offence for which cognisance would be taken by the court to proceed further in the matter. Thus it is not the province of the court at that stage to embark upon and sift the evidence to come to the conclusion whether offence has been made out or not. The learned Judge, therefore, was clearly in error in attempting to sift the evidence with reference to the averments made by the respondent in the counter-affidavit to find out whether or not offence punishable under Section 406, IPC had been made out."
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Another ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions, i.e., Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction.
13However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be :
1) Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers.
The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
2) The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
3) The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
4) Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loathe to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.
5) Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused.
6) The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person 14 and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender.
7) The process of the Court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.
8) Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a 'civil wrong' with no 'element of criminality' and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the Court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the Court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence.
9) Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction, the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.
10) It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.
11) Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained.
12) In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed with by the prosecution.
13) Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.
1514) Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge.
15) Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.
16) These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance to the requirements of the offence.
This present case is not a case where the allegations were so predominately of a civil nature that it would have eliminated criminal intent and liability. On the contrary, it is a fact and, in fact, is not even disputed that the deceased committed suicide and left a suicide note. May be, the accused are able to prove their non-involvement in inducing or creating circumstances which compelled the deceased to commit suicide but that again is a matter of trial. The ingredients of Section 306 are that a person commits suicide and somebody alone abets commission of such suicide which renders him liable for punishment. Both these ingredients appear to exist in the present case in terms of the language of Section 228 of the Code, subject to trial. The deceased committed suicide and as per the suicide note left by her and the statement of her son, the abetment by the accused cannot be ruled out at this stage, but is obviously subject to the final view that the court may take upon trial. One very serious averment that was made in the suicide note was that the deceased was totally frustrated when the accused persons took possession of the ground floor of her property, C-224, Tagore Garden, Delhi and refused to vacate the same. It is possible and if the Court believes the version 16 given by the prosecution and finds that there was actual sale of property in favour of the accused, as alleged by him, in that event, the Court may acquit them of not only the offence under Section 306 IPC but under Section 107 IPC also. There appears to be some contradiction in the judgment of the High Court primarily for the reason that if charge under Section 306 is to be quashed and the accused is not to be put to trial for this offence, then where would be the question of trying them for an offence of criminal trespass in terms of Section 448 IPC based on some facts, which has been permitted by the High Court.
The High Court could not have appreciated or evaluated the record and documents filed with it. It was not the stage. The Court ought to have examined if the case falls in any of the above-stated categories.
The High Court has also noticed that perusal of the suicide note brings to force the fact that the petitioner-accused is not only named but his illegal occupation of the house of the deceased is stated to be one of the primary reasons for Komal Kapoor in committing the suicide. The statement of the son of the deceased is also on the same line. Then the High Court proceeds further to notice that even if it is assumed at this stage that the suicide note and statement were correct, the action of the petitioner-accused in forcibly occupying the portion of the house of the deceased and the deceased taking the extreme step would not bring his act within the definition of abetment, as there is no material or evidence placed by the prosecution on record. This finding could hardly be recorded without travelling into the merits of the case and appreciating the evidence. The Court could pronounce whether the offence falls within the ambit and scope of Section 306 IPC or not. These documents clearly show that the accused persons had brought in existence the circumstances which, as claimed by the prosecution, led to the extreme step of suicide being taken by the deceased. It cannot be equated to inflictment of cruelty as discussed by the High Court in its judgment. Once Sections 107 and 306 IPC are read together, then the Court has to merely examine as to whether apparently the person could be termed as causing abetment of a thing. An abetter under Section 108 is a person who abets an offence. It 17 includes both the person who abets either the commission of an offence or the commission of an act which would be an offence. In terms of Section 107 IPC, Explanation (1) to Section 107 has been worded very widely. We may refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Goura Venkata Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2003) 12 SCC 469], wherein this Court held as under :
"8. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Act abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence. In the instant case, the abetted persons have been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 304. So in the case of A-1 it is Section 304 read with Section 109 IPC, that is attracted."
A wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material fact and such person voluntarily causing or procuring or attempting to cause or procure a thing to be done is said to instigate the doing of that thing. According to the record, the accused had made a wrong statement that he had paid a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- for purchase of the property C-224, Tagore Garden, Delhi and the property belonged to him. Whether it was a misrepresentation of the accused and was an attempt to harass the deceased and her family which ultimately led to her suicide is a question to be examined by the Court. The allegations as made in the afore-stated documents clearly 18 reflects that blank documents were got signed, but the purpose, the consideration and complete facts relating to the transaction were not disclosed to the deceased or the family. This would, at least at this stage, not be a case for examining the correctness or otherwise of these statements as these allegations cannot be said to be ex facie perverse, untenable or malicious. It would have been more appropriate exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court, if it would have left the matter to be determined by the Court upon complete trial. May be the accused would be entitled to get some benefits, but this is not the stage. These are matters, though of some civil nature, but are so intricately connected with criminal nature and have elements of criminality that they cannot fall in the kind of cases which have been stated by us above. There, the case has to be entirely of a civil nature involving no element of criminality.
Tejender Pal Singh Sahni Alias Rimpy vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. ds izdj.k esa bl U;k;ky; us oSdfYid mipkj gksus ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr vkjksi i= is'k gksus ds ckn izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk ij fopkj djuk U;k;ksfpr ugha ekuk gSA gLrxr izdj.k esa tSlk fd Åij foospu fd;k x;k gS] nq"izsj.k ds laca/k esa ;kph la[;k&1 tks e`rd dh iRuh gS] ds fo:) e`rd dk vius lqlkbZM uksV eas ckj&ckj VkWpZj djus dk vkjksi yxk;k gSA v;kph la[;k&2 ifjoknh ,oa vU; lkf{k;ksa us 'kknh ds nl fnu ckn e`rd ds Dyhfud esa tkdj ml ij izk.k?kkrd geyk dj pksV igaqpkus dk vkjksi yxk;k gS] ckj ckj mls tyhy djus rFkk ngst dk eqdnek ntZ djkus dh /kedh nsus dk vkjksi yxk;k gSA ;kph la[;k&1 dk fookg e`rd ds lkFk fnukad 22Qjojh] 2016 dks gqvk gSA mlds ckn fnukad 14-04-2016 dks ;kph la[;k&1 us mlds Dyhfud esa tkdj geyk djus dk vkjksi gS vkSj t;iqj esa tc rd mlds lkFk jgh gS] miyC/k lkexzh ds vuqlkj ckj ckj VkWpZj fd;k gS] ftlesa ;kph la[;k&2 o 3 us lkFk fn;k gSA rRi'pkr ;kph la[;k&1 }kjk geyk djus ds ckotwn e`rd ij mlds ekrk&firk ij ncko cukdj ngst dk eqdnek ntZ djkus dh /kedh nsdj ncko cukdj fy[kki<h djkus dk 19 vkjksi gSA rRi'pkr bankSj tkus ds ckn VsyhQksu ls ckj ckj VkWpZj djus] ngst dk eqdnek ntZ djkus dk vkjksi gS vkSj ckn esa ngst dh fjiksVZ Hkh djk;h] ftldh tkudkjh e`rd dks feyus ij mlus vkRegR;k dh gSA ftlds vk/kkj ij vuqla/kku esa ;kphx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 306] 120ch Hkk-an-la- dk vijk/k iqfyl us cuuk ekurs gq, vkjksi i= is'k fd;k gS] ftl ij fo}ku eftLVªsV us izlaKku vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gSA vr% izFken`"V;k ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd /kkjk 107 Hkk-na-la- ds rgr vkRegR;k ds fy, nq"izsj.k dh dksbZ lk{; ;kphx.k ds fo:) u gksA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335]. ds izdj.k esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa fuEu lkr vk/kkj crk;s gSa] tks fuEu izdkj gSa%& "105. 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.
202. 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.
217. 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."
gLrxr izdj.k esa mijksDr lkrksa vk/kkjksa esa ls dksbZ Hkh vk/kkj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ vFkok mldh vkuq"kkafxd dk;Zokgh dks fujLr fd;s tkus dk ugha ik;k tkrk gS rFkk uk gh Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Another ¼mijksDr½ ds vuqlkj izdj.k esa /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr vkijkf/kd izdj.k dh dk;Zokgh dks lekIr fd;s tkus ds rRo fo|eku ik;s tkrs gSaA rnuqlkj bl ;kfpdk esa dksbZ lkj ugha ik;k tkrk gS vkSj ;g ;kfpdk vLohdkj dh tkrh gSA ¼cuokjh yky 'kekZ½ U;k;kf/kifr feRry@129