Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rahul Gharu vs State on 11 November, 2020
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2735/2020
Rahul Gharu S/o Sh. Shyam Lal Gharu, Aged About 25 Years, B/c
Valmiki, R/o Nai Loco, Subhash Chowk, Ratanada Police Station,
Jodhpur, District Jodhpur Metro.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State, Through Pp
2. Smt. Prabha Kanwar W/o Anand Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o
Unto Ki Ghati, Soorsagar Police Station, Jodhpur, Dist.
Jodhpur Metro.
3. Anand Singh S/o Sh. Chetan Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Unto
Ki Ghati, Soorsagar Police Station, Jodhpur, Dist. Jodhpur
Metro.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Limba
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, P.P
Mr. Manish Purohit for R/3
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order 11/11/2020 Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 76/2020 registered at Police Station Soorsagar, Distt. Jodhpur for offence under Sections 354, 506, 509 IPC and Section 67 of Information & Technology Act.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint before the S.H.O. Police Station, Soorsagar stating therein that a person is uploading embarrassing and sexually explicit images of his wife on instagram and he her to meet otherwise he will show these pictures to husband. Upon inquiry (Downloaded on 12/11/2020 at 09:14:08 PM) (2 of 6) [CRLMP-2735/2020] from the police, the man was found to be Rahul Garu who is spreading the pictures on social media.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence. It is argued that the complainant herself has uploaded the photographs and he is being falsely implicated under the influence of her husband. It is argued that petitioner never met the complainant Smt. Prabha Kanwar and he has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion. All these aspects show that a false case has been registered against the petitioner, therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that offences as alleged by the complainant has been fully proved after thorough investigation by the police. It is argued that specific allegation has been levelled by the complainant against the petitioner regarding uploading explicit images of her on instagram by making fake id on instagram. It is submitted that prima facie case is established against the petitioners, 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.
From the perusal of the FIR, it is revealed that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the petitioners. The police after investigation has found that the petitioner used to follow her on instagram and later on uploaded sexually explicit images and videos from instagram id of complainant. It is also evident that the petitioner started calling on phone and threatened the complainant and her husband. Thus, prima facie case under Section 354, 506, 509 and 67 of I.T. Act is made out against the petitioner.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2020 at 09:14:08 PM)
(3 of 6) [CRLMP-2735/2020] 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 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 (Downloaded on 12/11/2020 at 09:14:08 PM) (4 of 6) [CRLMP-2735/2020] 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.
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."(Downloaded on 12/11/2020 at 09:14:08 PM)
(5 of 6) [CRLMP-2735/2020] 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 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 (Downloaded on 12/11/2020 at 09:14:08 PM) (6 of 6) [CRLMP-2735/2020] 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 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. 76/2020 registered at Police Station Soorsagar, Distt. Jodhpur is made out. Hence, this misc. petition is hereby dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 74-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2020 at 09:14:08 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)