Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kewal Ram Meena vs State Of Rajasthan Through P P on 16 August, 2017
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CR. MISC. PETITION NO.3153/2017.
Kewal Ram Meena S/o Kaluram Meena, R/o Village Jansi
Ka Pura Tehsil Toda Bhim Distt. Karauli (raj.)
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Amir Aziz
For State : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, P.P.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Order
16/8/2017
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482
Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the FIR
No. 71/2016 registered at Police Station Vidhyadhar
Nagar, District Jaipur North for the offences under
Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B Indian Penal
Code 1860.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that present case relates to cheating/forgery committed
by the brother of the petitioner namely Asharam. So far
as the petitioner is concerned, he had appeared for the
examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service
Commission for the post of Patwari on 13.2.2016.
Petitioner had not committed any cheating or forgery so
far as his own appearance in the examination, is
concerned. Petitioner was declared successful candidate
and police enquiry is pending with regard to his
antecedents. As per the prosecution case, Dimpy Kumar
had appeared in the examination for the post of Patwari
on behalf of Asharam, brother of the petitioner. In this
regard petitioner cannot be held responsible as he had
not appeared on behalf of his brother. It appears that
petitioner has been falsely involved in this case merely
because he is the brother of accused Asharam. So far as
the petitioner is concerned, it is the case of the
prosecution that forged identity card of Asharam was in
possession of the petitioner. However, the said identity
card had not been used by the petitioner for any
purposes. In support of his argument, learned counsel
has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal
And Ors AIR 1992 SC 604, it has been held as
under:-
"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 formuale 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 investi- gation
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 institu- tion 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."
Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has
opposed the petition but has failed to controvert the
factual aspects of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
Thus, in the present case, Dimpy Kumar was apprehended while taking the examination for the post of Patwari in place of Asharam (brother of the petitioner). So far as the petitioner is concerned, it cannot be said that he had committed any criminal offence. So far as petitioner is concerned, he took examination for the post of Patwari and has successfully cleared the examination In case any cheating/forgery was committed by the brother of the petitioner, he (petitioner) cannot be made to suffer for the same. No criminal offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 71/2016 registered at Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, District Jaipur North for the offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B Indian Penal Code 1860 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner.
(SABINA)J. Mrg. /25