Punjab-Haryana High Court
Zahida vs Hafeez @ Hafiz on 1 March, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M-38294 of 2011(O&M) 1
Criminal Misc. No.M-38297 of 2011(O&M)
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: 1.3.2013
Criminal Misc. No.M-38294 of 2011(O&M)
Zahida
......Petitioner
Versus
Hafeez @ Hafiz
.......Respondent
Criminal Misc. No.M-38297 of 2011(O&M)
Zahida
......Petitioner
Versus
Mohd.Jamil
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.G.N.Malik, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.J.S.Bhatia, Advocate,
for the respondents.
****
SABINA, J.
Vide this order, the above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as the similar controversy involved in both the cases.
Petitioner has preferred these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint No.70 dated 18.10.2006 titled as Hafeez @ Hafiz vs. Criminal Misc. No.M-38294 of 2011(O&M) 2 Criminal Misc. No.M-38297 of 2011(O&M) Zahida under Section 499, 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short); criminal complaint No. 83 dated 30.11.2008 tiled as Mohd. Jamil vs. Zahida under Sections 499, 500 IPC; summoning orders dated 4.10.2011 and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Petitioner had lodged FIR No.178 dated 14.7.2004 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at police station Malerkotla against the respondents and others. The case of the petitioner in the said FIR was that she had got married to Mohd. Yaseen on 21.10.2001. However, after marriage, petitioner had been harassed by her husband and his family members including the respondents in the present petitions. Respondents Hafeez @ Hafiz and Mohd. Jamil are the brothers of husband of the petitioner.
Respondents filed a petition in this Court seeking quashing of the FIR in question. This court allowed the said petition and quashed the FIR qua the present respondents Hafeez @ Hafiz and Modh. Jamil. Thereafter, the respondents filed the complaints in question against the petitioner under Sections 499/ 500 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no offence of defamation was made out against the petitioner in the present case. Petitioner had taken recourse to law by lodging the FIR in question. Merely because the FIR in question qua the respondents had been quashed by this Court would not give a right to the respondents to file a complaint against the petitioner under Sections 499/ 500 IPC.
Criminal Misc. No.M-38294 of 2011(O&M) 3Criminal Misc. No.M-38297 of 2011(O&M) Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions and has submitted that on account of false FIR filed against the respondents, they had been defamed in their relatives and friends.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, 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 under Section 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 chennelised 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-38294 of 2011(O&M) 4 Criminal Misc. No.M-38297 of 2011(O&M) and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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 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 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 specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the Criminal Misc. No.M-38294 of 2011(O&M) 5 Criminal Misc. No.M-38297 of 2011(O&M) grievance of aggrieved party.
7. 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 present case, petitioner had taken recourse to law by lodging an FIR against respondents Mohd. Jamil and Hafeez @ Hafiz and others under Sections 406, 498-A IPC. Although the FIR in question was quashed by this Court with regard to the respondents but the said fact would not lead to the inference that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Sections 499, 500 IPC.
Petitioner had taken recourse to law and had levelled allegations against the respondents in good faith for protection of her own interest. Hence, no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner punishable under Section 500 IPC. Criminal Misc. No.M-38294 of 2011(O&M) 6 Criminal Misc. No.M-38297 of 2011(O&M) Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. Criminal complaint No.70 dated 18.10.2006 titled as Hafeez @ Hafiz vs. Zahida under Section 499, 500 IPC; criminal complaint No. 83 dated 30.11.2008 tiled as Mohd. Jamil vs. Zahida under Sections 499, 500 IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning orders dated 4.10.2011 are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE March 01, 2013 anita