Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kulwant Singh & Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr. on 4 December, 2014
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2837/2014
Kulwant Singh & Anr. V/S State of Rajasthan & Anr.
1
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
O R D E R
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2837/2014
Kulwant Singh & Anr.
V/S
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Date of Order : 04.12.2014
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Mr. H.S. Sidhu, for petitioners.
Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor.
BY THE COURT :-
This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.202/2014 dated 23.06.2014 of Police Station, Kesari Singhpur, District Sri Ganganagar, for offence punishable under Sections 430, 447, 307, 511, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC read with Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners is nothing but a counterblast of the FIR No.194/2014 dated 16.06.2014 of Police Station, S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2837/2014 Kulwant Singh & Anr. V/S State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2 Kesari Singhpur, District Sri Ganganagar lodged at the instance of petitioner No.1. It is contended that in fact on 12.06.2014 at 09:45 PM, when the petitioners were cultivating their fields, the complainant-respondent No.2, along with certain other persons, came to their fields and started quarrel in relation to getting water from the water channel. When the petitioners have reported the incident to the police vide FIR No.194/2014, the complainant- respondent No.2 has lodged the impugned FIR after a delay of about seven days in counter to that FIR. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact the complainant-respondent No.2 and other persons were aggressors and they have committed the offences as alleged in the FIR No.194/2014 and the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the impugned FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Asmathunnisa Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2011) 11 SCC 259 and has argued that the S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2837/2014 Kulwant Singh & Anr. V/S State of Rajasthan & Anr. 3 impugned FIR lodged against the petitioners is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR constitute prima facie case against the petitioners and, therefore, no interference is called for while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned FIR.
The complainant-respondent No.2 has lodged the complaint with the police in relation to a incident took place on 12.06.2014 and in that complaint, it is specifically alleged that the petitioners, along with certain other persons have entered into his field and tired to cut the water supply from the water channel and when the complainant-respondent No.2 has protested, the accused persons threatened him with dire consequences. It is also alleged in the impugned FIR that the accused persons have tried to assault the complainant-respondent No.2 and also abused the servant of the S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2837/2014 Kulwant Singh & Anr. V/S State of Rajasthan & Anr. 4 complainant-respondent No.2, who belongs to scheduled caste.
Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing First Information Report lodged in any police station while exercising the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and 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 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2837/2014 Kulwant Singh & Anr. V/S State of Rajasthan & Anr.5
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.
(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 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2837/2014 Kulwant Singh & Anr. V/S State of Rajasthan & Anr.6
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 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2837/2014 Kulwant Singh & Anr. V/S State of Rajasthan & Anr.
7
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. V/s. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr. reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has reiterated the above principle.
In the instant case, after reading the contents of the impugned FIR, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. At this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the impugned FIR.
So far as the facts of case of Asmathunnisa (supra) are concerned, they are quite different from the facts of the present case as there was no allegation against the appellant, in that case to utter abusive language to a member of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe. Here in the present case, there are specific allegations against the S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2837/2014 Kulwant Singh & Anr. V/S State of Rajasthan & Anr. 8 petitioners and other accused persons that they abused the person belonging to the scheduled caste.
In such circumstances and in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred cases, this Court does not find any merit in this Criminal Misc. Petition as the petitioners have failed to make out a case for quashing the impugned FIR.
Hence there is no force in this Criminal Misc. Petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
Stay petition is also dismissed.
[VIJAY BISHNOI],J.
Abhishek 83