Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ravindra Kumar & Ors vs State on 29 June, 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
ORDER
RAVINDRA KUMAR GARG & ORS. vs. THE STATE OF
RAJASTHAN & ANR.
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.999/2009
under section 482 Cr.P.C. against
the order dated 20.12.2006
passed by the District & Sessions
Judge, Hanumangarh in
Cri.Revision No.175/2005.
...............
Date of Order : 29th June 2011.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI
Mr. Mahendra Prajapat for Mr.Ravi Bhansali for the
petitioners.
Ms. Rajlakshmi , Public Prosecutor.
BY THE COURT:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
The brief facts of the case giving rise to this cri.misc. Petition are that respondent No.2 filed a 2 complaint before the learned trial court alleging inter alia that the complainant is having one agriculture electric connection in his name. Instead of actual consumption, with malafide intention , the accused persons are issuing the bill of higher amount . Earlier also the accused persons issued bill of higher amount instead of actual consumption, and then the matter was settled by the Settlement Committee. It was alleged that the accused Ravindra Kumar Garg demanded a bribe of Rs. 20,000/- and when the amount was not paid he raised excessive amount in the bill, to harass the complainant. The learned trial court vide its order dated 03.09.2005 took cognizance against the accused persons, the petitioners herein , and process was issued against them. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 03.09.2005, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the revisional court, which was rejected by the the learned District & Sessions Judge vide its order dated 20.12.2006.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the court below, the petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition .
3
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of taking cognizance by the learned trial court and the rejection of the revision by the revisional court, is against the facts because respondent No.2 falsely implicated the present petitioners and both the courts have failed to consider this aspect that there is no evidence available against the present petitioners on record. The orders dated 03.09.2005 and 20.12.2006 suffers from patent illegality an hence deserves to be quashed and set aside. The counsel further contended that the trial court as well as the revisional court failed to consider this aspect that no prosecution sanction was obtained under section 197 Cr.P.C. and as per clause 12 and section 21 IPC, the present petitioners are public servants, therefore , sanction of the competent authority is necessary for prosecution. The prosecution of the present petitioners is nothing else, except the abuse of the process of law and therefore, the counsel for the petitioners has prayed to quash the proceedings of the trial court.
I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order of the learned trial court as well as the revisional court. 4 In R.P.Kapur vs. State (AIR 1060 SC 866) the apex court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:
"(i) where it manifestly
appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or
continuance e.g. want of
sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in
the first information report or
complaint taken at its face value
and accepted in their entirety do
not constitute the offence
alleged;
(iii) where the allegations
constitute an offence, but there
is no legal evidence adduced or
the evidence adduced clearly or
manifestly fails to prove the
charge."
5
Very wide discretionary power is vested with the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. , yet the said power should be exercised sparingly. The inherent powers may be viewed from two angles- fistly, it supplements the express provisions of the Code, where there is scope to supplement without in any way bypassing the provisions of the law; secondly, it cannot override any express provisions of the Code.
The powers possessed by the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of the power is based on sound principles.
While relying upon the above legal position, it is clear that the first information report in itself discloses the commission of the offence and so far as the question of sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. that has been considered by the trial court as well as by the revisional court and the trial court while relying upon the judgment reported in RLW 1993(2) 615 Ran Singh vs. State of Rajasthan , held that to cause injuries cannot be said to be part of the duty of the public 6 servant and in such cases, protection under section 197 Cr.P.C. is not available. The learned revisional court also affirmed the order of the learned trial court while agreeing with the conclusion drawn by the learned trial court. Where the first information report discloses commission of any offence, the court should not exercise the powers to quash the cognizance.
Therefore, this cri.Misc. petition is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed and the order of the learned trial court as well as that of the revisional court are maintained.
(KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI),J.
l.george