Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devendra Singh Rathore vs State on 16 September, 2020
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2528/2020
Devendra Singh Rathore S/o Shri Bhim Singh Rathore, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o 5-D-6, New Housing Board, Shastrinagar,
Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State, Through Pp
2. Sanjay Kumar Trivedi S/o Sh. Damodar Lal Trivedi, R/o
Guda Ramji, Khinwara, Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Rajlaxmi Choudhary, P.P
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order 16/09/2020 Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 09/2020 registered at Police Station Khinwara, District Pali for offence under Sections 420, 406, 120B IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 15.01.2020, the respondent no.2 made a complaint before the SHO, Police Station, Khinwara, District Pali alleging that he was unmarried and looking for bride. On coming to know about the girl, the respondent no.2 alongwith his brother went to Bhilwara and met the girl Sunita at Pragati Marriage Bureau. It was stated that the petitioner and other employee Usha Joshi working in the said marriage bureau asked them to pay Rs.3,50,000/- to the girl as they were very poor. Subsequently, on 01.07.2019 marriage between the (Downloaded on 19/09/2020 at 08:29:53 PM) (2 of 7) [CRLMP-2528/2020] respondent no.2 and Sunita took place. After marriage, she started living in matrimonial relationship with respondent no.2 till 26.07.2019 at Pali and thereafter, she went to Vapi, Gujarat and was found missing. Upon filing missing person report, it was revealed that Sunita was residing at Bhubaneshwar, Orissa with her parents. Upon making inquiry, the respondent no.2 came to know that he had been cheated by Sunita in cannivance with the petitioner and other co-accused. On this complaint, an Fir was registered against the petitioner and other accused persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the respondent no.2 and Sunita took place and petitioner is only an employee who has nothing to do with the matrimonial dispute. The complainant paid the amount to Pragati Marriage Bureau, Bhilwara and later on due to matrimonial dispute, the girl Sunita who was resident of Bhubaneshwar, Orissa left the house of the complainant and went away.
Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the FIR itself it is mentioned that first of all, a missing report was registered. The complainant lodged a report at Police station, Vapi, Gujarat where they came to know that Sunita went with her own will and at present residing at Orissa. So the petitioner who was just an employee of the marriage bureau, did not take any money or cheated the complainant.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that a gang was operating in the name of Pragati Marriage Bureau where the petitioner alongwith other accused took a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- from the complainant for marriage and thereafter, the lady went away from the house of the complainant. The lady also took some (Downloaded on 19/09/2020 at 08:29:53 PM) (3 of 7) [CRLMP-2528/2020] gold ornaments and cash with her, therefore, at this stage, the FIR is not liable to be quashed.
I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the FIR and material on record.
The respondent complainant in the FIR has specifically stated that the petitioner and other employee Usha Joshi and Jitendra @ Jitu working in the said marriage bureau asked them to pay Rs.3,50,000/- to the girl for marriage. The accused told the complainant that the girl belonged to Jaipur whereas, the police came to know that girl belonged to Orissa. Thereafter, the lady went away from the house of the complainant and she allegedly also took some gold ornaments and cash with her. Upon perusal of case diary, it is revealed that the independent witnesses Mahesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar Dave have also corroborated the fact that present petitioner alongwith two other co-accused took money from the complainant.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal & Ors. : 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335], laid down guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and criminal proceedings. The Court held:
"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 (Downloaded on 19/09/2020 at 08:29:53 PM) (4 of 7) [CRLMP-2528/2020] 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 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.(Downloaded on 19/09/2020 at 08:29:53 PM)
(5 of 7) [CRLMP-2528/2020]
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 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."
Yet again, Supreme Court, in case of Janta Dal Vs. H.S. Choudhary : (1992) 4 SCC 305], while relying on Choudhary Bhajanlal's case (supra), held:
"This inherent power conferred by Section 482 of the Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so when the (Downloaded on 19/09/2020 at 08:29:53 PM) (6 of 7) [CRLMP-2528/2020] evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to the cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. This Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., to which both of us were parties have dealt with this question at length and enunciated the law listing out the circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction in quashing proceedings. We do not, therefore, think it necessary in the present case to extensively deal with the import and intendment of the powers under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Code."
In another decision in the case of Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari Devi & Ors, JT 2007 (11) 122, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot go beyond the allegations made in the F.I.R or rely upon extraneous consideration. For the purpose of finding out the commission of a cognizable offence, the High Court is only required to look into the allegations made in the complaint or the F.I.R.
In another case of N. Soundaram Vs. P.K. Pounraj & Anr. :
(2014) 10 SCC 616], Supreme Court, while reiterating the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) on scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., held:
"It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any Court and to secure the ends (Downloaded on 19/09/2020 at 08:29:53 PM) (7 of 7) [CRLMP-2528/2020] of justice [See State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal]. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482, CrPC [See MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi]. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. [See Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora]."
In the facts and circumstances of the case so also in the light of the judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court, no case for quashing of FIR No. 09/2020 registered at Police Station Khinwara, Distt. Pali is made out. Hence, this misc. petition is hereby dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 26-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 19/09/2020 at 08:29:53 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)