Himachal Pradesh High Court
______________________________________________________________________ vs on 12 July, 2018
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr. MMO No.: 246 of 2017
Reserved on: 27.06.2018
Date of Decision: 12.07.2018
______________________________________________________________________
Lt. Col. Ran Vijay Singh and another ....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Coram:
r to .....Respondents.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioners: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate.
For the respondents: M/s Sanjeev Sood & Desh Raj Thakur,
Additional Advocate Generals, for respondents
No. 1 to 4.
Mr. N. S. Chandel, Advocate, for respondent
No. 5.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge:
By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
"Keeping in view the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:24 :::HCHP 2
therefore, it is respectfully prayed that the .
present petition may kindly be allowed and the FIR No. 32/2016 dated 06.03.2017 under Sections 379 and 34 IPC and FIR No. 69/2017 dated 03.06.2017 under Sections 420,468,470,471 and 120B IPC registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P. against the petitioners may kindly be quashed and criminal proceedings pertaining to these FIRs be quashed and set aside, being an inherent power of this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice and fair play.
Any other order or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice and fair play."
2. The case of the petitioners, who are husband and wife, is that a General Power of Attorney as also a Special Power of Attorney were executed in favour of petitioner No. 1 by respondent No. 5, who is his real uncle. As per the petitioners, the attorneys were executed in view of the fact that respondent No. 5 was residing in United States of America and was a NonResident Indian (NRI). As per petitioner No. 1, on the strength of said attorneys, he undertook renovation of ancestral property by way of ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:24 :::HCHP 3 raising loan for the said purpose. Further case of the petitioners is .
that respondent No. 5 arrived in India on 03.01.2017 and thereafter, with an intent to grab the entire ancestral property, he hatched a conspiracy by way of lodging two FIRs against the petitioners, i.e. FIR No. 32/2017, dated 06.03.2017, under Sections 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and FIR No. 69/2017, dated 03.06.2017, under Sections 420,468,470,471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Gagret, District Una. Further as per the petitioners, they always considered respondent No. 5 to be their well wisher and were completely taken back by lodging of said FIRs and after they realized the ill intentions of respondent No. 5, who thereafter committed trespass over the property of the petitioners and also destroyed their property, the petitioners also lodged FIR No. 34/2017, dated 08.03.2017 against respondent No. 5, under Sections 448 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Gagret, District Una.
According to the petitioners, they had brought to the notice of the authorities concerned that they had been falsely roped in by way of lodging of false FIRs against them by respondent No. 5. Further as per the petitioners, the contents of the FIRs which stand lodged against them by respondent No. 5 demonstrate that not only the said FIRs are time barred, but even otherwise, at the most, the ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:24 :::HCHP 4 dispute between the petitioners and respondent No. 5 is a civil .
dispute, which involves the ancestral property of the petitioners and respondent No. 5 and therefore, the said FIRs deserve to be quashed. It is further the case of petitioner No. 1 that he is a serving Indian Army officer and the purpose of registering false FIRs against him is to coerce him which is evident from the fact that even the wife of the petitioner No. 1 has also been falsely implicated in a criminal case.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the FIRs, subject matter of the present petition, as also other documents which stand appended with the same. Records of investigation also stand perused.
4. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to take note of the fact that taking into consideration the close relationship between petitioners and respondent No. 5, efforts were made by this Court to have the matter amicably settled between the parties by way of mediation, but the same did not yield positive result.
5. Prayer made in the petition is for quashing of two FIRs, therefore, before I proceed further, it is relevant to take note of the contents of the FIRs.
6. It is alleged in FIR No. 32/2017, dated 06.03.2017 that the complainant was a NonResident Indian and also a resident of America.
::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 5As per the complainant, he returned to India alongwith his wife on 3 rd .
January, 2017 after a period of five years. Thereafter, he visited his relatives at Delhi and Palampur. On 05.03.2017, when he reached at Daulatpur, where his house is, he discovered that his one Royal Enfield Motorcycle bearing registration No. HP19A7523, one Hero Passion Motorcycle without number, one Air Conditioner of Samsung company and Stabilizer of Voltas company were missing. He was told by Parveen Kumar, Diler Singh, Amit Thakur and Sunil Kanwar that in December, 2012 when the complainant was in America, the accused had committed theft of the above mentioned articles of the complainant and that they were witnesses to the same. According to the complainant, he was told by the above mentioned persons that when they made inquiries from the accused as to why he was taking away the valuables of the complainant, the accused told them that he had purchased the said Motorcycles and he was taking them away to have the same registered in his name. It is further mentioned in the FIR that the fact of theft having been committed by the accused could not be intimated by the witnesses immediately to the complainant, as the witnesses were not having the address etc. of the complainant. It is further mentioned in the same by the complainant that he had also come to know that the accused had committed other frauds with his relatives as also with the complainant and therefore, action be taken against the accused.
::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 67. Similarly, in FIR No. 69/2017 dated 03.06.2017, it is .
mentioned that the complainant was a Green Card holder of United States of America and was a Nonresident Indian. It is further mentioned in the FIR that his wife Debrah Lynn Kanwar was a permanent resident of United States of America. Complainant had constructed his house in Ward No. 7 at Daulatpur Chowk, Tehsil Ghanari, District Una and had also installed an electric meter from the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board in the garage of his house. As per the complainant, he was exclusive owner of a pakki constructed lintel posh abadi alongwith garage of vehicles. Further as per the complainant, he returned to India alongwith his wife on 3rd January, 2017 after a period of five years.
Thereafter, he visited his relatives at Delhi and Palampur. On 05.03.2017, when he reached at Daulatpur, where his house is, he discovered that the accused in conspiracy with each other and without the consent of the complainant, had dishonestly deceived and cheated the complainant and got the electricity meter of the garage transferred in the name of accused No. 1 and they had also prepared forged documents in the absence of the complainant with intention to transfer the electricity meter of the complainant in the name of accused No. 1. According to the complainant, he applied for information under the Right to Information Act and after receiving the same, he was shocked to see the documents which were produced by accused No. 1 in conspiracy with accused No. 2, ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 7 i.e., wife of accused No. 1 for transfer of the said meter, taking advantage .
of the fact that the complainant and his wife were out of India from 2012 to 2016. As per the complainant, to get the meter transferred in his name, the accused has forged an affidavit of the complainant dated 18.10.2016 by forging the signatures of the complainant. In these circumstances, it stands mentioned in the FIR that an appropriate action be taken against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 470, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
8. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to take into consideration the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the principles and the parameters stand laid down with regard to exercise of inherent powers so conferred upon the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, more so, in the matters pertaining to quashing of FIRs.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 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 extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 8 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
1.
r to and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
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 primafacie 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 noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 9
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.
103. 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."
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy and another, (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 522 has held as under:
::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 10"5. Exercise of power under Section 482 of .
the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law.
That is the doctrine which finds expression in the Section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a person ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 11 anything it gives him that without which it cannot .
exist). While exercising powers under the Section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the Section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercises of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 12
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari .
Devi and others, (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 369 has held as under:
"12. From the principles laid down in the abovementioned decisions, it is clear that the Court is entitled to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for quashing a criminal proceeding or an FIR when the allegations made in the same do not disclose the commission of an offence and that it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case.
We also feel it just and proper to refer to a leading decision of this court reported in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Suppl. {1} SCC 335] in which this court pointed out certain category of cases by way of illustrations wherein the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The same are as follows : (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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers unde Section 156(1) of the Code except under an ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 13 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 FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable 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 malafide 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.
16. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was filed only when all efforts to return to the matrimonial home had failed and the respondent No.2husband had filed a divorce petition under ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 14 Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That .
apart, in our view, filing of a divorce petition in a Civil Court cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code as it is well settled that criminal and civil proceedings are separate and independent and the pendency of a civil proceeding cannot bring to an end a criminal proceeding even if they arise out of the same set of facts. Such being the position, we are, therefore, of the view that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code has gone beyond the allegations made in the FIR and has acted in excess of its jurisdiction and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR by going beyond the allegations made in the FIR or by relying on extraneous considerations."
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 355 has held as under:
"14. Before adverting to the core issue, viz.
whether under the given circumstances the appellant was entitled to approach the High Court for getting the entire criminal proceedings against him quashed, it would be appropriate to notice the circumstances and the parameters enunciated and reiterated by this Court in a series of decisions under which the High Court can exercise its ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 15 inherent powers under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. to .
prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
15. The power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is undoubtedly very wide but it has to be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. It is trite to state that the said powers have to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only where the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. [See: Kurukshetra University & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.1, Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors.2, and State of Haryana & Ors.
Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash and others Vs. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchi 1 and another, (2012) 12 Supreme Court Cases 72 has held as under:
::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 16"43. In our considered opinion, in view of the .
facts which we have discussed hereinabove, no inference can be drawn in this case that the police action is indefensible or vindictive or that the police were not acting in discharge of their official duty. In Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Limited, this Court has held that the power under Section 482 of the Code should be used sparingly and with circumspection to prevent abuse of process of court but not to stifle legitimate prosecution. There can be no two opinions on this, but, if it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuation of a prosecution would lead to abuse of process of court, the power under Section 482 of the Code must be exercised and proceedings must be quashed. Indeed, the instant case is one of such cases where the proceedings initiated against the police personnel need to be quashed. In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal filed by the complainant Kailashpati Singh. We allow the appeal filed by Om Prakash, Pradeep Kumar, Shyam Bihari Singh and Bharat Shukla and set aside the impugned order to the extent it dismisses Cr.M.P.No.822 of 2005 filed by them for quashing order dated 14/06/2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in Complaint Case No.731 of 2004 issuing process against them. We quash Complaint ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 17 Case No. 731 of 2004 pending on the file of Judicial .
Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur."
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anup Sarmah Vs. Bhola Nath Sharma and others, (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 400 has held as under:
"4. In Sardar Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi AIR 1979 SC 850 this Court examined a similar case wherein the truck had been taken in possession by the financier in terms of hire purchase agreement, as there was a default in making the payment of instalments. A criminal case had been lodged against the financier under Sections 395, 468, 465, 471, 120b/34 IPC. The Court refused to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.PC and did not quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the financier had committed an offence. However, reversing the said judgment, this Court held that proceedings initiated were clearly an abuse of process of the court. The dispute involved was purely of civil nature, even if the allegations made by the complainant were substantially correct. Under the hirepurchase agreement, the financier had made the payment of huge money and he was in fact the owner of the vehicle. The terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement gave rise in case of dispute only to civil ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 18 rights and in such a case, the civil court must decide .
as to what was the meaning of those terms and conditions."
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lokesh Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 130 has held as under:
"25.
Having regard to the factual scenario, noted above, and for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the present case of the appellant is one of the fit cases where the High Court should have exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.PC. It is not disputed by the respondent that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant with regard to identical charges made in the FIR. It was alleged that as per CAG Inquiry Report dated 15th December, 2008 Rs.4,39,617/ has been misappropriated by the appellant, all the copies of original bills and documents are available in the office of CAG and the original documents are available in the office of the Directorate, State Literacy Programme."
16. A perusal of the law so declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically and clearly lays down that the powers of quashing criminal ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 19 proceedings should be exercised very sparingly depending upon the .
peculiar facts of the case. Hon'ble Supreme court has further held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not for the High court to appreciate the evidence and its truthfulness or sufficiency inasmuch as it is the function of the trial Court. Hon'ble Supreme court has further laid down that if it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuation of a prosecution would lead to abuse of process of Court, the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be exercised and proceedings must be quashed. However, there is a caution which has been so reiterated on more than one occasions by the Hon'ble Supreme court and the same is to the effect that the said power has to be exercised by the High Court very sparingly and with circumspection and also in the rarest of rare cases. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that this inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised: (a) to give effect to an order under the Code; (b) to prevent abuse of the process of Court; and (c) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It has also held that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any flexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
17. Now, coming to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the accused and the complainant are closely related to each other. In fact, petitioner No. 1 Ran Vijay Singh is the nephew of the ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 20 complainant, whereas petitioner No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 1. It is .
also not in dispute that the complainant came back to India in January 2017 after more than five years. A General Power of Attorney having been executed in favour of petitioner No. 1 by the complainant dated 12.08.2011 is also not in dispute. By way of a General Power of Attorney (Annexure P1 with the petition), the complainant had authorized the petitioner No. 1 to look after and manage the share of the complainant in the immovable property so mentioned in the General Power of Attorney, which was jointly owned and possessed both by the complainant as well as by petitioner No. 1. Acts which had been permitted by the complainant to be performed by accused No. 1 as his Attorney are as under:
"1. To look after and manage our share in the immovable property mentioned above.
2. To deal with any of our court cases and to file any court case or appeal on our behalf in any competent Court and execute any document required in this connection, to engage or appoint any lawyer or advocate or legal practitioner in this case.
3. To apply for any loan from any bank/deptt. and mortgage our share in the property for the purpose of loan mentioned above and to make statement, produce evidence oral and documentary.
4. To enter into any correspondence/deed with any respective authority as deemed necessary in this connection."::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 21
18. It is also a matter of record that certain FIRs have been .
lodged by the petitioner also against the private respondents.
19. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the contents of the documents appended with the petition, it is evident and apparent that the bone of contention between the parties is ancestral property. As far as first FIR (FIR No. 32/2017) is concerned, the allegations contained in the same are to the effect that the accused has committed theft of two Motorcycles, one air conditioner and a stabilizer, value of which, as per the complainant is about two lakhs. In the second FIR (FIR No. 69/2017), the allegation is that forgery has been committed by the accused therein in having an electricity meter, which was alloted by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board in favour of the complainant by having the same fraudulently transferred on the basis of forged documents in the name of the accused. The alleged theft, which was committed by the accused as per the first FIR, was committed even as per the complainant in December 2012. The allegation is based against the accused on the basis of information so provided to the complainant by persons named in the FIR, who allegedly saw accused committing the theft in December, 2012. Allegation with regard to electricity meter is that documents were forged for having the same transferred in the name of the accused. It is apparent from the other ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 22 documents appended alongwith the petition by the present petitioners .
that he has taken up the matter with the authorities concerned that the FIRs in issue have been falsely registered as the intent of the complainant therein is to grab the property in issue, which is the ancestral property.
Now, though it is mentioned in the FIR by the complainant that the property, electricity meter installed wherein was got fraudulently transferred by the accused in his name was owned and possessed by the complainant, but documents demonstrate that the property in issue is joint property. Besides this, complainant had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner No. 1 authorizing him to look after the said property also on behalf of the complainant. As already mentioned hereinabove, the first FIR pertains to the alleged acts, which took place in December 2012. The explanation which has been given in the FIR itself as to why the factum of the alleged offence being committed by petitioner No. 1 could not be brought to the notice of the complainant by the alleged eye witnesses, does not inspires confidence. On the other hand, it appears to be a version which has been concocted to justify that as far as the complainant is concerned, on his behalf there is no delay in lodging complaint/FIR. Records of the case, which stand perused, demonstrate that as far as the other FIR is concerned, i.e., FIR No. 69/2017, dated 03.06.2017, post investigation, the police has prepared a cancellation report.
::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 2320. Be that as it may, in my considered view, lodging of both the .
said FIRs is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court and if the allegations made in the FIRs are taken at their face value also, they prima facie do not constitute any offence nor do they make out a case against the accused in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Lodging of the FIRs appears to be a motivated act on account of the dispute which is between the complainant and petitioner No. 1 pertaining to the ancestral property. Unlike the contentions so made on behalf of the complainant, record demonstrates that the property which is the bone of contention between the complainant and petitioner No. 1, is ancestral property and not a property which can be termed to be exclusively owned and possessed by the complainant. This Court is not oblivious to the fact that the scope of inherent jurisdiction so vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code is narrow, yet this Court has to perform its duty even by invoking the inherent power so vested in it when in the opinion of the Court, the same is necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of Court and also to secure the ends of justice. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in my considered view, it is a fit case where this Court has to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of process of Court and secure the ends of justice.
::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP 2421. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 32/2017 dated .
06.03.2017 under Sections 379 and 34 IPC and FIR No. 69/2017 dated 03.06.2017 under Sections 420,468,470,471 and 120B IPC, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P., are quashed and set aside.
Petition stands disposed of, so also miscellaneous applications, if any.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 12, 2018 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP