Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Sharma vs State Of H.P. And Another on 12 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No.341 of 2022
.
Date of Decision: 12.08.2024.
Rakesh Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another ...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate vice
Mr. Rajul Chauhan, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate
General.
None for respondent
No.2/informant
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral)
The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 28 of 2021, dated 27.05.2021, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC registered at Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. and the consequent proceedings arising out of it.
2. It has been asserted that the contents of the FIR do not disclose the commission of any offence and the self-serving 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 2Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 ) statement of the informant is not sufficient to constitute the offence. There is no other evidence on record to attract the .
offence. The corroboration from independent witnesses is lacking. The victim's parents stated before the police that nothing had happened in their presence. No person in the village or neighbourhood has supported the version of the informant.
The FIR has been lodged with malicious intention to harass the petitioner and his aged parents. Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken to be correct and accepted in their entirety, no offence is made out against the petitioner. The allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no person can believe them. The FIR was lodged with the ulterior motive of settling down the personal score and wreaking vengeance upon the petitioner. The informant is suffering from depression and the family members are trying to assist her by providing medical aid. However, the informant is not cooperative, which has aggravated the situation. The informant tried to take away the bag containing some money from the almirah of the petitioner's father. The hot words were exchanged between the parties and a minor scuffle took place between them to prevent the informant from taking the bag. The informant had made serious allegations against her ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 ) cousin, which were compromised. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be ordered to be .
quashed.
3. The petition is opposed by respondent No.1 by filing a reply making preliminary submissions regarding lack of maintainability and the petitioner having not approached the Court with clean hands. The contents of the petition were denied on merits. It was asserted that the complaint made by the informant disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence.
The police investigated the matter as per the law and submitted the charge sheet before the Court. The petitioner has raised disputed questions of the fact, which cannot be adjudicated in these proceedings. The statements of the petitioner's parents may not be considered as the sole factor for quashing the FIR.
The offence not only affects an individual but it affects society as well. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 4Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 )
4. I have heard Mr. Arsh Chauhan, learned vice counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Ayushi Negi, learned Deputy Advocate .
General for respondent No.1/State.
5. The respondent No.2/informant was served but none appeared on her behalf.
6. Mr. Arsh Chauhan, learned vice counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations in the FIR even if accepted to be correct do not constitute the commission of any cognizable offence. The incident took place due to a minor scuffle over the bag of money and there was no intent to outrage the modesty or to intimidate the informant; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Usha Chakraborty and Anr. vs. State of West Bengal and Anr, AIR 2023 SC 688 in support of his submission.
7. Ms. Ayushi Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No.1/State submitted that the allegations in the FIR constitute the commission of a cognizable offence. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court and learned Trial Court should be left to adjudicate the correctness or otherwise of ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 ) the allegations made by the informant. This Court should not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction at this stage. Hence, she .
prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
9. The law regarding the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan v. State [2024] 3 S.C.R. 722: 2024 INSC 233:2024 SCC OnLine SC 339, wherein it was observed: -
9. The law with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited (2006) 6 SCC 736: 2006 INSC 4521 after considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read thus:
"12. The principles relating to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few--Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692: 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194: 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591: 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164: 1996 SCC ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 ) (Cri) 628], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259: 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269: 2000 SCC (Cri) .
615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168: 2000 SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645: 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122: 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is warranted while examining prayer for quashing a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 ) complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are necessary for making out the offence.
.
(v.) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.
10. Similar is the judgment in Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P. 2024 INSC 322 2024: SCC OnLine SC 643, wherein it was held:-
12. We may gainfully refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1990 INSC 363:
"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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 ) 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 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 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 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.
::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 9Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 ) (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 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."
11. A similar view was taken in Usha Chakraborty v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90 wherein it was observed:
"5. Before adverting to the rival contentions with reference to an application under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. within the parameters, we think it only appropriate to refer to the following decisions of this Court in respect to the scope of exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.
P.C.
6. In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court held: --
"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of the facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 ) texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy .
is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court."
7. In Vesa Holdings Private Limited v. State of Kerala (2015) 8 SCC 293, it was held that: --
"13. It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. In the present case, there is nothing to show that at the very inception, there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC. In our view, the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all. The criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. In our opinion in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and the High Court committed an error in refusing to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings."
8. In Kapil Aggarwal v. Sanjay Sharma (2021) 5 SCC 524, this Court held that Section 482 is designed to achieve the purpose of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not permitted to generate into weapons of harassment.
9. In the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: AIR 1992 SC 604, a two-judge Bench of ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 ) this Court considered the statutory provisions as also the earlier decisions and held as under:--
(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 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 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 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, ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 ) 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.
10. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, a three-judge Bench of this Court laid down the following principles of law:--
"57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge:
i) The police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;
iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 ) genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled .
at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr. P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after the investigation, ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 14 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 ) if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file .
an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is very wide, but the conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, r more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."
12. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
13. The relevant part of the FIR shows that the petitioner had abused the informant, touched her private parts, pushed her down, laid upon her, and threatened to kill her. It is not disputed ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 15 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 ) even in the petition that a scuffle had taken place. The petitioner's mother stated that the petitioner and the victim had .
an argument after which the petitioner's parents went to their home. A similar statement was made by the petitioner's father.
The FIR also does not mention that the petitioner's parents were present at the time of the incident; rather it mentions that they were present in their room. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner's parents have not supported the version of the informant will not help him.
14. Section 354A (1)(i) of IPC punishes physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. Touching the private part of a female involves physical contact having explicit sexual overtures and will fall within the definition of Section 354A (i) of the IPC. The relationship between the parties will not help the petitioner because incest is not unknown to humans and there is nothing inherently improbable in it. Therefore, the submission that the allegations in the FIR are inherently improbable is not acceptable.
::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 16Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 )
15. The FIR specifically mentions that the informant was beaten. This is duly corroborated by the report of the MLC .
wherein the swelling and tenderness were found on the left hand, the wrist and ankle of the victim. Abrasions were found on the left side of the back and swelling was present on the right side of the abdomen beneath the breast. Thus, the allegations in the FIR duly corroborated by MLC prima facie, show the commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.
16. The informant stated in the FIR that the petitioner had threatened to kill her. It was submitted that the intention was lacking and the offence under Section 506 of IPC is not made out. The intention is a matter of trial. Prima facie, a person intends the natural consequences of his act and threatening to kill a person will constitute the commission of an offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC.
17. The FIR also mentions that the petitioner had abused the informant. It also mentions the abuses which need not be reproduced. The nature of the abuses is such as to provoke any woman to commit a breach of peace and prima facie an offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC is made out.
::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 17Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 )
18. It was submitted that the allegations in the FIR are not supported by any evidence and the evidence is insufficient to .
conduct trial. This submission cannot be accepted. Prima facie the statement of the victim of a sexual assault is sufficient and it is for the learned Trial Court to weigh the same. In any case, it was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Maroti, (2023) 4 SCC 298: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1503 that the High Court exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot examine the truthfulness, sufficiency and admissibility of the evidence. It was observed:
"21. If FIR and the materials collected disclose a cognizable offence and the final report filed under Section 173(2)CrPC on completion of investigation based on it would reveal that the ingredients constitute an offence under the POCSO Act and a prima facie case against the persons named therein as accused, the truthfulness, sufficiency or admissibility of the evidence are not matters falling within the purview of exercise of power under Section 482CrPC and undoubtedly they are matters to be done by the trial court at the time of trial. This position is evident from the decisions referred to supra.
22. In the decision in M.L. Bhatt v. M.K. Pandita [M.L. Bhatt v. M.K. Pandita, (2023) 12 SCC 821: 2002 SCC OnLine SC 1300: JT (2002) 3 SC 89], this Court held that while considering the question of quashing of FIR the High Court would not be entitled to appreciate by way of sifting the materials collected in course of investigation including the statements recorded under Section 161CrPC.::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 18
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 )
23. In the decision in Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab [Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, (2020) 3 SCC 317: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 51], a two-judge Bench of this Court dealt with the .
question as to the matters that could be considered by the High Court in quashment proceedings under Section 482CrPC. It was held therein that statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161CrPC being wholly inadmissible in evidence could not be taken into consideration by the Court while adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482CrPC. In that case, this Court took note of the fact that the High Court was aware that one of the witnesses mentioned that the deceased victim had informed him about the harassment by the accused, which she was not able to bear and hence wanted to commit suicide. Finding that the conclusion of the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings, in that case, was on the basis of its assessment of the statements recorded under Section 161CrPC, it was held that statements thereunder, being wholly inadmissible in evidence could not have been taken into consideration by the Court while adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482CrPC. It was also held that the High Court committed an error in quashing the proceedings by assessing the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C."
19. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Jaiswal vs. State of Jharkhand, 2024 INSC 357: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 685 that the Court exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot conduct a mini-
trial or enter into an appreciation of an evidence of a particular case. It was observed: -
"13. We say so for reasons more than one. This Court in catena of Judgments has consistently held that at the time of examining the prayer for quashing of the ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 19 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 ) criminal proceedings, the court exercising extra- ordinary jurisdiction can neither undertake to conduct a mini-trial nor enter into appreciation of evidence of a .
particular case. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint cannot be examined on the touchstone of the probable defence that the accused may raise to stave off the prosecution and any such misadventure by the Courts resulting in proceedings being quashed would be set aside. This Court in the case of Akhil Sharda 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 held to the following effect:
"28. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini-trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini-trial can be conducted by the High Court in the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered."
20. A similar view was taken in Maneesha Yadav's case (supra), wherein it was held that: -
"13. As has already been observed hereinabove, the Court would 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 at the stage of quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. However, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, if taken at its face value, must disclose the commission of an offence and make out a case against the accused. At the cost of repetition, in the present case, the allegations ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 20 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 ) made in the FIR/complaint even if taken at its face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence or make out a case against the accused. We are of the considered view .
that the present case would fall under Category-3 of the categories enumerated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra).
14. We may gainfully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home(2019) 11 SCC 706: 2018 INSC 1060:
"14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge sheet is filed, the petition for quashing of FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23]. In Joseph Salvaraj A. [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this Court while deciding the question of whether the High Court could entertain the Section 482 petition for quashing of FIR when the charge-sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the Section 482 petition, observed : (SCC p. 63, para 16) "16. Thus, the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge [Joesph Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365] could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge- sheet, documents, etc. or not."::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 21
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 )
21. Thus, it is not permissible for this Court to conduct a trial to determine the truthfulness and falsity of the allegations .
in the F.I.R.
22. The challan has been filed before the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court is seized of the matter. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqbal v. State of U.P., (2023) 8 SCC 734: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 949 that when the charge sheet has been filed, learned Trial Court should be left to appreciate the same. It was observed:
"At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is ready to be filed. Although the allegations levelled in the FIR do not inspire any confidence particularly in the absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged offences, we are of the view that the appellants should prefer a discharge application before the trial court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We say so because even according to the State, the investigation is over and the charge sheet is ready to be filed before the competent court. In such circumstances, the trial court should be allowed to look into the materials which the investigating officer might have collected forming part of the charge sheet. If any such discharge application is filed, the trial court shall look into the materials and take a call whether any discharge case is made out or not."::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS 22
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6955 )
23. Therefore, there is no reason to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the .
present case.
24. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed.
25. Parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 29.08.2024. The record of the learned Trial Court be returned forthwith, so as to reach the learned Trial Court well before the date fixed.
26. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 12th August, 2024 (saurav pathania) ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 20:30:09 :::CIS