Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Veena Sakhrani & Ors vs . on 1 December, 2014
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.2199/2014
Smt. Veena Sakhrani & Ors.
vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Date of Order : 1st December, 2014
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Mr M.K.Garg ]
Mr Shailendra Kala ] for petitioners
Mr Vikram Rajpurohit - Public Prosecutor
Mr H.M.Saraswat, for respondent No.2
BY THE COURT:
This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.114/2014 dated 30.05.2014 lodged at Police Station, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur for the offences punishable under section 380, 323 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant-respondent No.2 Namrata Sukhrani lodged the aforesaid FIR No.114/2014 at Police Station, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur, inter alia, alleging therein that on 30.05.2014, she, along with her son Ishan, 2 went to market to buy some households and when returned to home at about 5:00-5:30 P.M., she saw the lock of the room removed, door was open and all her belongings were missing. When she asked about this, the petitioners along with cousin sister-in-law of the complainant started beating with her, used swear-words and threatened her to kill. At that time, one Poonam Lalwani was present and when she tried to rescue the complainant, she was asked not to interfere in the matter. It is also alleged that the complainant has received injuries. The police has started investigation into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR, however, on 16.09.2014, the petitioner have filed this criminal misc. petition challenging the impugned FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are absolutely false and no such incident as alleged in the impugned FIR has taken place on 30.5.2014. It is contended that earlier on 01.10.2014, the Investigating Officer has clearly stated before this Court that as per the CCTV Footage, no incident of 3 theft has taken place on 30.05.2014 as calimed by the complainant and in view of the above fact, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed because the allegations levelled in the same are false. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that various litigations in various courts are going on between the petitioners and the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 has filed the impugned FIR with ulterior motive. The learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, prayed that the impugned FIR may kindly be quashed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that from bare reading of the contents of the FIR, prima facie commission of cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners and it can only be ascertained, after thorough investigation, whether the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are true or false. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of this criminal misc. petition.
Learned counsel for the 4 complainant-respondent No.2 has argued that when from bare reading of the FIR, prima facie case of commission of cognizable offence is made out, then the FIR cannot be quashed. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondent No.2 that in fact the incident narrated in the impugned FIR took place on 29.05.2014, however, the complainant-respondent No.2 has inadvertently mentioned the date of incident as 30.05.2014. It is also contended that pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 01.10.2014, the petitioners made available a hard-disc of CCTV Camera installed at their house to ascertain the fact whether any such incident as alleged in the FIR took place on 29.05.2014 or not but the said hard-disc does not contain the footage of 29.05.2014 and there are all possibilities that the petitioners might have deleted the recording of 29.05.2014 from hard-disc. It is contended by the counsel for the complainant that the investigation is still going on and after investigation only it can be concluded that whether such incident took place ever either 5 on 29.05.2014 or 30.05.2014 and, therefore, at this stage, no interference is called for.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the factual report produced by the Investigating Officer as well as the material available on record.
It is true that in CCTV Footage of 30.05.2014, the police has found that no such incident as alleged in the FIR has taken place, however, the CCTV Footage of 29.05.2014 is not available as the same has been deleted. The police is still investigating the case and after investigation only, it can be concluded whether any such incident as alleged by the complainant in the impugned FIR has taken place on 29.05.2014 or 30.05.2014. For reaching to the said conclusion, the police has to verify the version of the rival parties with the corroborating evidence.
More over, in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing a First Information Report lodged in any police 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr., 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has reiterated the above principle.
In the case in hand, from bare perusal of the contents of the FIR, it can very well be said that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. However, whether the allegations levelled in the FIR are true or false is a matter of investigation and final conclusion can only be drawn after thorough investigation.
In view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above 10 referred cases, when a prima facie case is made out from bare reading of the contents of the FIR, the FIR cannot be quashed while exercising powers under section 482 CrPC.
Hence, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed. It is expected from the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation expeditiously preferably within a period of one month.
Stay petition also stands
dismissed.
[VIJAY BISHNOI],J.
m.asif/-