Himachal Pradesh High Court
Lashkari Ram vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 11 May, 2015
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 56 of 2015.
.
Judgement reserved on: 7.5.2015.
Date of decision: 11.5.2015.
Lashkari Ram ...... Petitioner.
Vs.
State of H.P. & anr. ..... Respondents
Coram
r to
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes 1For the petitioner : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent s : Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, Ms. Meenakshi Sharma and Mr. Rupinder Singh, Addl. A.Gs. for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Mr. Pyare Lal, HC No. 21, Police Station, Bharari, Distt. Bilaspur.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 61/2014 dated 9.6.2014, under sections 354, 451, 506 IPC registered against him at Police Station, Bharari, District Bilaspur, H.P.
2. It is contended that because of a civil dispute, inter se, the parties, a false case has been filed against the petitioner.
3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent regarding the very maintainability of this petition in view of final report having been presented before the Magistrate. In support Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:08:49 :::HCHP ...2...
of his contention, the respondent has relied upon a judgement of this court in Cr.MMO No. 183 of 2014 titled Nancy Bhatt & another vs. .
State of H.P. decided on 6.4.2015, where like in the present case the final report had been presented and this court held as follows:-
"2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents that once the FIR has culminated in charge- sheet, the present petition has been rendered infructuous, because it is not the FIR but the chargesheet which forms the basis of criminal trial.3.
r I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case carefully.
4. In State of Punjab vs. Dharam Vir Singh Jethi 1994 SCC (Cri.) 500, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the chargesheet was submitted, quashing of FIR is not permissible since it would be open to the Court to refuse to frame charge. It was observed as under:
"2. Heard learned counsel for the State as well as the contesting respondent. We are afraid that the High Court was not right in quashing the First Information Report on the plea that the said respondent had no role to play and was never the custodian of the paddy in question. In fact it was averred in the counter-affidavit filed in the High Court that the said respondent had acted in collusion with Kashmira Singh resulting in the latter misappropriating the paddy in question. At the relevant point of time the respondent concerned, it is alleged, was in overall charge of the Government Seed Farm, Trehan. This allegation forms the basis of the involvement of the respondent concerned. The High Court was, therefore, wrong in saying that the respondent concerned had no role to play. A specific role is assigned to him, it may be proved or may fail. In any case, pursuant to the First Information Report the investigation was undertaken and a charge sheet or a police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed in the court. If the investigation papers annexed to the charge sheet do not disclose the commission of any crime by the respondent concerned, it would be open to the court to refuse to frame a charge, but quashing of the First Information Report was not permissible.
5. In Vineet Narain and others vs. Union of India and another (1996) 2 SCC 199, the Supreme Court after refusing to quash the FIR, held that when a chargesheet was filed in the competent Court, it is that Court alone which will then deal with the case on merits, in accordance with law.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:08:49 :::HCHP...3...
6. This legal position has been reiterated in number of cases. (See: Anukul Chandra Pradhan vs. Union of India .
and others (1996) 6 SCC 354 and Jakia Nasim Ahesan and another vs. State of Gujarat and others (2011) 12 SCC
302).
7. Admittedly the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is information of a cognizable offence given under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code'). The legisla ture in its wisdom under the provisions of the Code has given limited/restrictive power to the Court to intervene at the stage of investigation by the police. Investigation is the exclusive domain of the police. Ordinarily, it is only when the charge sheet is filed that the Court is empowered either to take cognizance and to frame charge or to refuse to do the same.
8. The FIR is the sheet anchor on the basis of which the investigation ensues. However, once the FIR on the basis of which the investigation was initiated has culminated into a chargesheet, the FIR does not remain the sheet anchor because the same alone then cannot be read and has to be read along with the material gathered by the investigating agency during the course of the investigation.
9. It would, therefore, not be permissible for this Court to quash the FIR or else that would amount to annihilating a still born prosecution by going into the merits on the plea of proof of the prima facie case. Further, adverting to those facts and giving findings on merits would otherwise result in the grossest error of law because this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code cannot undertake pre-trial of a criminal case."
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that once the dispute is essentially of a civil nature and is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then court has every jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings irrespective of its stage. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgement of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:08:49 :::HCHP ...4...
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (2013) 11 SCC 673, wherein it was held as .
follows:-
"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code 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 facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal 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 criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court."
5. There is no quarrel with the proposition as canvassed by Sh. Subhash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner but the same will only apply in case the dispute would have been predominately of a civil nature, but then the allegations constituting the offence, under sections 354, 451 and 506 IPC can by no stretch of imagination be termed to be constituting an offence of civil nature.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra's case (supra) was seized of the matter which involved monetary consideration and a civil suit making similar grievance had already been filed and was pending adjudication. It is in this background that the observations as reproduced hereinabove were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Whereas in the present case there are ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:08:49 :::HCHP ...5...
specific allegations against the petitioner which when taken on the face value, constitute an offence punishable under law.
.
7. The prosecutrix in her statement under section 154 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that on 9.6.2014 at about 11 a.m. when she was all alone in the courtyard and washing clothes then the petitioner came there and threatened her that she should advise her husband not to set his eyes on the land or else he alongwith his son would kill him. Thereafter with the bad intention he caught hold of the prosecutrix and pushed her because of which she sustained injuries on her left leg as the same struck against the stairs resulting in further injuries to her knee. This statement of the prosecutrix is further corroborated by the Medico Legal Certificates (MLCs).
8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that because the prosecutrix is a Staff Nurse, therefore, she has manipulated the MLCs and it was on the basis of such false documents that petitioner is sought to be involved in the present case.
9. The mere fact that prosecutrix is working as Staff Nurse would not in itself establish that MLCs are in any way false, however, these are the matters which are required to be considered during the course of the trial and at present the court is only required to consider the allegations as contained in the First Information Report and the final report, which as observed earlier, prima-facie, indicate and make out the commission of offence for which the petitioner has been charged.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:08:49 :::HCHP...6...
10. In addition to the aforesaid, it would be noticed that after the investigation, the petitioner has not been charged with for lesser .
offence, but has been charged with this very offence for which he had been booked at the time of registration of FIR. That apart, the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the pendency of civil proceedings, because admittedly the civil proceedings were instituted after the registration of the FIR, that too, at the instance of the opposite party. The FIR in question was registered on 9.6.2014 while the civil suit came to be filed exactly after one month on 8.7.2014.
11. Having said so, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.
May 11, 2015. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ),
(Hem) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:08:49 :::HCHP