Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh vs State & Anr on 8 September, 2016
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRIMINAL MISC. (PET.) (CRLMP) NO.389/2016
Dinesh Jeengar S/o Late Shri Pushkar Jeengar, resident
of Darsna Ghati, Rampura Chouraha, Udaipur.
....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Rajasthan.
2. Bhagwati Lal Mehta S/o Shri Jagnnath Singh
Mehta, resident of 48, Flora Complex, Police
Station Sukher, District Udaipur.
...RESPONDENTS
Date of Order :: 08.09.2016
HON'BLE MR. P.K. LOHRA, J.
Mr. S.S. BARGUJAR, for the Petitioner.
Mr. V.S. RAJPUROHIT, Public Prosecutor, for the State.
Mr. MANISH PITALIYA, for respondent No.2-
complainant.
ORDER
-----------
BY THE COURT:
Accused-petitioner, by the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has prayed for quashing FIR No.369/2014 registered at Police Station Bhopalpura, District Udaipur. In the impugned FIR, ten accused persons were named and for one of the accused-persons it was mentioned that the same shall be unearthed during investigation.
2The incumbents, named as accused-persons in the FIR, are attributed offences under Sections 206, 207, 209, 257, 258, 260, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
In order to lay challenge to FIR, it is, inter alia, averred in the petition that agricultural land bearing Aaraji No.2775, 2781, 2787 and 2780 ad measuring 0.5600 hectare situated in revenue village Bhuvana, Tehsil Girva District Udaipur existed in the name of Bheru Lal, Smt. Magdu, Smt. Narmada and Smt. Tulsi as per revenue record. Being khatedars of the aforesaid land, all of them executed power of attorney in favour of one Bhagwati Lal Mehta and Bhagwati Lal Mehta, in the capacity of power of attorney holder of all the khatedars, sold that land to Harji, Deva, Logar and Chena by a registered sale-deed dated 07th of January, 2000, which was registered on 10 th of November, 2000. As per the registered instrument all the four purchasers acquired right of one-forth share over the said land. Later on Harji executed an agreement to the extent of his share to one Roop Lal @ Roopa vide agreement to sale dated 6th of December,2000. Subsequently, sale- deed, in respect of the same, was also executed. Besides Harji, Logar and Chena also executed sale- deed to the extent of their share in favour of Bhamru Gameti on 26th of March, 2007.
As per version of the petitioner when Bhamru Gameti was in peaceful possession over the said land, second respondent-complainant, in connivance with some other persons, prepared two agreements to sale dated 2nd of May, 2001 and 2nd of July, 2001 3 respectively as well as surrender deeds dated 2 nd of May, 2001 and 10th of May, 2002. All these documents were produced before the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur and thereupon lease-deeds were issued in their favour. It further emerges out from the petition that when Roop Lal visited UIT Office, he came to know about all these alleged dubious dealings of second respondent and thereupon, at his behest, a criminal complaint was filed before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, PCPNDT cases, Udaipur. In the criminal complaint, Roop Lal has attributed allegation of forgery against the second respondent besides other allegations. The complaint aforesaid of Roop Lal was sent for investigation, Police Station Sukher and same was registered as C.R. Case No.321/2014 against the second respondent. The police commenced investigation against the second respondent for offence under Section 467, 468, 469, 471, 420, and 120-B IPC. Precisely to challenge the impugned FIR, the petitioner has urged in the petition that the same has been lodged by the second respondent to retaliate against the FIR lodged by Roop Lal and it is a clear case of counter-blast at his behest. In totality, the allegation of petitioner is that criminal complaint lodged by second respondent, which has culminated into the impugned FIR, is based on false and concocted facts.
Further elaborating ground to challenge FIR, it is submitted by the petitioner that the entire story narrated by the respondent-complainant was based on fabricated facts yet the police in collusion with him has made an attempt to implicate the petitioner as well as other accused persons named in the FIR.
4The fact that at the behest of Roop Lal and others, Dinesh Sahu & Ors., and Om Prakash criminal misc. petitions were earlier filed before this Court, which were registered as 3226/2014, 2571/2015 and 2892/2015 respectively is also narrated in the petition. As per version of the petitioner, all these petitions were disposed of by this Court while granting liberty to all the petitioners to make a representation before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer was also directed to consider the same before submitting final report after investigation. In this background, petitioner has submitted that the representations submitted by all these incumbents were not paid any heed by the IO and now the IO is bent upon to arrest the petitioner and other accused-persons without objectively considering representations. In totality, if the grounds urged by the petitioner are examined objectively then it would, ipso facto, revel that petitioner has categorised FIR as false, fabricated besides questioning bona fide of the respondent- complainant.
It is also urged that a bare reading of the contents of the FIR, it is not discernible that the petitioner or the other incumbents have played any role in preparation of forged document or used the same for cheating someone.
The petition came up before the Court at the threshold on 16.2.2016 and the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to procure case diary in the matter. Although the Court has directed Public 5 Prosecutor to summon case diary, but no direction as such was given against the investigating agency not to proceed with the investigation.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a detailed factual report in the matter dated 7 th of September, 2016 addressed to him by SHO Police Station Bhupalpura, District Udaipur. As per factual report, investigation in the matter has been completed and Investigating Officer has submitted final report (charge-sheet) against the accused-persons including the petitioner in the Court of Additional Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Magistrate No.2 (South) Udaipur on 11 th of May, 2016. The charge-sheet is filed against the petitioner and other accused-persons for offence under Sections 206, 207, 209, 257, 258, 260, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The relevant excerpt showing conclusion of the investigation for submission of charge-sheet against the petitioner and other incumbents in vernacular reads as under:-
"Li"V gS fd o"kZ 2012 fnlEcj esa ;wvkbZVh ls iV+Vk ifjoknx.k ds uke tkjh gksus ds ckn tuojh 2013 esa ;g dqVjfpr nLrkost lkeus vk;k o vizsy 2013 esa U;k;ky; esa nkok is'k dj fn;k x;k ftl ij o"kZ 2014 esa feyhHkxr dj jkthukek is'k dj fn;k vkSj U;k;ky; ds le{k rF;ksa dks Nqikrs gq, fMdzh izkIr dj yh gSA vk'p;Ztud <ax ls :iyky] gjth] jfo ek.Mkor] vfHk"ksd tSu] fnus'k lkgw vkfn esa ls fdlh us Hkh bl cgqeqY; Hkwfe dk lkSnk djus ls igys okaNuh; ,oa Øsrk lko/kku fl)kUr ds Øe esa bl Hkwfe dk ljdkjh jktLo fjdkMZ ugha ns[kuk lkekU; Øe esa vfo'oluh; ,oa lafnX/k yxrk gS tcfd jktLo fjdkMZ esa tehu ;wvkbZVh ds uke ntZ gks pqdh FkhA vr% vkjksihx.kksa }kjk tkurs cq>rs gq, csbZekuh iwoZd vk'; ls ifjoknx.k dks gkfu igqapkus ds vk'; ls dqVjfpr nLrkost rS;kj dj U;k;ky; o ljdkjh dk;kZy;ksa esa feF;k rF; vk/kkj ij izLrqr@mi;ksx ysdj vijkf/kd "kM;a= jpdj n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k tkuk izekf.kr gSA vr% vc rd ds vuqla/kku ls ;g ik;k x;k gSA fd vkjksihx.k gjth firk eaxyk eh.kk o :iyky mQZ :ik firk nksyk th 6 xesrh o vU; 'kjhd jgs vkjksfi;ksa }kjk lEifr dks leigZ.k ds :i esa fMØh ds fu"iknu esa ml ij vf/kdkj ds fcuk nkok] izoapuk dj U;k;ky; esa okn is'k fd;k o ljdkjh LVkEi dk dwVjfpr nLrkost dks rS;kj dj feF;k mi;ksx ysdj ifjoknhx.k ds lkFk /kks[kk/kM+h dkfjr dh ,oa dwVjfpr nLrkost dks ewY;oku izfrHkwfr ds :i esa mi;ksx ys /kks[ks ds iz;kstu ls vlyh ds :i esa tku cq>dj feF;k mi;ksx esa "kM;a= iwoZd mi;ksx fy;k tks vijk/k /kkjk 206&207&209&257&258&260&420&467&468&471&120ch IPC dk tweZ izekf.kr ik;k tkus ls gjth eh.kk] :ik mQZ :iyky] fnus'k lkgw gj rhuksa vfHk;qDrx.k dks fnukad 6&8&15 dks ckn iwNrkN vijk/k /kkjk mijksDr esa fu;ekuqlkj fxj¶rkj fd;k x;kA ftudks ckn vuqla/kku ts-lh- djok;k x;k tks ckn esa ekuuh; mPp U;;ky; }kjk tekur Lohdkj dh xbZA fxj¶rkj'kqnk vfHk;qDrx.k ls iwNrkN ,oa vuqla/kku ls izdj.k gktk esa jfo ek.Mkor iq= eksgu yky ek.Mkor fuoklh _"kHknso ekxZ fr:ifr dksEiysDl ds ikl lsDVj 11] vfHk"ksd firk egkohj tSu fuoklh ekNyk exjk Ldhe &2 d &19 fgj.kexjh lsDVj 11 Fkkuk xkso/kZu foykl] vfHk"ksd pUnk;.k firk ehBkyky th tSu fuokl fparke.kh ekxZ jkoth dk gkVk mn;iqj] fnus'k lksuh iq= 'kadjyky lksuh fuoklh czgeiqjh diklu Fkkuk diklu ftyk fpRrkSMx<] fnus'k thuxj fuokl gkFkh iksy mn;iqj] vkseizdk'k iq= x.ks'kyky lksuh jkoth dk gkVk mn;iqj] bl ekeys esa ykHkkFkhZ gksdj eq[; "kM+;a= dkjh gksuk] dwVjfpr nLrkost rS;kj djus esa fyIr gksuk lkeus vk;k gSA vuqla/kku ls ;g Li"V gS fd izdj.k esa fooknxzLr Hkwfe dk lkSnk jfo ek.Mkor] vfHk"ksd tSu }kjk 21 yk[k :i, esa fd;k x;k gS ftldh ,ot esa ek+= [kpsZ ds iSls gh :iyky dks fn, x, gS rFkk lHkh izdkj dk okn [kpZ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh bR;kfn gsrq [kpZ Hkh mDr nksuksa us gh vius ,tsUV@nyky vfHk"ksd pUnzk;.k] fnus'k lksuh] fnus'k thuxj] fnus'k lkgw ds ek/;e ls dj jgs gSA vr% okLrfod ykHkkFkhZ ¼vuqfpr ykHk izkIr djus okys½ mDr vfHk;qDrx.k gSaA vkjksih clUr tSu ls iwNrkN dh xbZ rks crk;k fd eSa esjs tkudkj fnus'k lksuh ls feyus x;k Fkk rks mlus ,d jftLVªh esa xokg ds gLrk{kj djus dks dgkA eq>s crk;k fd dksVZ dh fMØh ds vk/kkj ij nksuksa ikVhZ jftLVªh djok jgh gSA bl ij xokg ds :i esa gLrk{kj djuk crk;kA vU; eqyfteku dh iwNrkN esa Hkh clUr tSu dh "kM+;a= esa Hkwfedk ugha vkbZ gSA vc rd ds vuqla/kku ls ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd vkjksihx.k ¼1½ gjth iq= eaxyk eh.kk fuoklh ihiyh Fkkuk ijlkn ¼2½ :iyky mQZ :ik iq= nkSyk xesrh fuoklh jsckfj;ksa dks xqMk] ¼3½ jfo ek.Mkor iq= eksguyky fuoklh _"kHknso ekxZ fr:ifr VªsDVj ds ikl 11 ftyk mn;iqj] ¼4½ vfHk"ksd tSu iq= egkohj tSu fuoklh ekNyk exjk Ldhe &2 d &19 fgj.kexjh Fkkuk xksj/ku foykl mn;iqj ¼5½ vfHk"ksd pUnzk;.k iq= ehBkyky tSu fuoklh fparke.kh ekxZ jkoth dk gkVk ftyk mn;iqj ¼6½ fnus'k lksuh iq= 'kadjyky lksuh fuoklh czgeiqjh diklu Fkkuk diklu ftyk fpRrkSM+x< ¼7½ fnus'k thuxj fuoklh /kkckbZth dh ckMh mcs'oj th jksM mn;iqj ¼8½ vkseizdk'k lksuh iq= x.ks'kyky lksuh fparke.kh ekxZ jkoth dk gkVk mn;iqj ¼9½ fnus'k lkgw iq= x.ks'kyky lkgw fuoklh y{ehekxZ vey dk dkaVk Fkkuk lwjtiksy 7 mn;iqj }kjk lEifRr dks leigZ.k ds :i esa fMØh ds fu"iknu esa ml ij vf/kdkj ds fcuk nkok] izoapuk dj U;k;ky; esa okn is'k fd;k o ljdkjh LVkEi dk dwVjfpr nLrkost rS;kj dj feF;k mi;ksx ysdj ifjoknx.k ds lkFk /kks[kk/kMh dkfjr dh ,oa dwVjfpr nLrkost dks ewY;oku izfrHkwfr ds :i esa mi;ksx ys /kks[ks ds iz;kstu ls vlyh ds :i es tkucw>dj feF;k mi;ksx esa lM;a=iwoZd mi;ksx fy;k tks vijk/k /kkjk 206&207&209&257&258&260&420&467&468&471&120 ch IPC dk tqeZ izekf.kr ik;k tkus ls ckn vuqla/kku "kM;a= esa 'kkfey mDr lHkh vfHk;qDrx.kksa dks fxj¶rkj fd;k x;kA izdj.k ds laca/k esa flfoy vihy la[;k 264@2014 ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj jkt nk;j dh tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa yafcr gS ftlesa ;FkkfLFkfr vkns'k gSA izdj.k gktk esa nkSjku vuqla/kku vfHk;qDrx.k gjth eh.kk] :ik mQZ :iyky] fnus'k lkgw] fnus'k lksuh] vfHk"ksd tSu] vfHk"ksd pUnzk;.k] jfo ek.Mkor] fnus'k thuxj gks lHkh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk tekur Lohdkj dh xbZ tks orZeku esa tekur ij fjgk gSA vkseizdk'k lksuh ftldks ckn vuqla/kku fnukad 4&4&16 dks fxj¶rkj fd;k x;k gSA vfHk;qDr fnus'k thuxj ls vuqla/kku ds nkSjku ,d pSd vkbZlhvkbZlhvkbZ czkap e/kqcu mn;iqj dk ,d pSd uacj 321253 ftlesa 5 yk[k :i, fnukad 1&8&2014 Hkjs gksdj :ik iq= nksykth xesrh dks vnk fd;k tks cjken fd;k x;kA dqfy;k vuqla/kku ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls vkjksihx.k ¼1½ gjth iq= eaxyk eh.kk mez 59 lky fuoklh ihiyh ch Qyk Fkkuk ijlkn mn;iqj] ¼2½ :iyky mQZ :ik iq= nksyk xesrh mez 45 lky fuoklh jsckfj;ksa dks xqMk Fkkuk izrkiuxj mn;iqj ¼3½ jfo ek.Mkor iq= eksguyky mez 56 lky fuoklh 50 _"kHknso ekxZ fr:ifr VªsDVj ds ikl lsDVj 11 Fkkuk xks-fo- ftyk mn;iqj] ¼4½ vfHk"ksd tSu iq= egkohj tSu mez 36 lky fuoklh 2 d &19 ekNyk exjk Ldhe lsDVj 11 fgj.kexjh Fkkuk xksj/ku foykl mn;iqj ¼5½ vfHk"ksd pUnzk;.k iq= ehBkyky tSu mez 30 lky fuoklh 64 fparke.kh ekxZ jkoth dk gkVk Fkkuk ?k.Vk?kj ftyk mn;iqj ¼6½ fnus'k lksuh iq= 'kadjyky lksuh mez 32 lky fuoklh 12 czgeiqjh diklu Fkkuk diklu ftyk fpRrkSM+x< ¼7½ fnus'k thuxj iq= Lo- iq"djyky thuxj mez 39 lky fuoklh 39 /kkckbZth dh ckMh mcs'oj th jksM jkeiqjk Fkkuk ukbZ mn;iqj ¼8½ vkseizdk'k lksuh iq= x.ks'kyky lksuh mez 52 lky fuoklh 1 lsodksa dh iksy >f.M;ksa dh vksy Fkkuk ? k.Vk?kj mn;iqj ¼9½ fnus'k lkgw iq= x.ks'kyky lkgw mez 32 lky fuoklh 45 y{ehekxZ vey dk dkaVk Fkkuk lwjtiksy mn;iqj ds fo:) vijk/k /kkjk 206&207&209&257&258&260&420&467&468&471&120 ch IPC dk c[kwch izekf.kr ik;k tkus ls gj ukS vfHk;qDrx.kksa ds f[kykQ pktZ'khV uacj 46@16 fnukad 30&4&16 dks drk dh tkdj ekuuh; U;k;ky; Jheku ACJ & JM -2 nf{k.k mn;iqj esa fnukad 11@5@16 dks izsf"kr dh xbZA tks U;k;ky; tSj VªkbZy gSA 8 Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, looking to the allegations contained in the FIR and the investigation conducted so far resulting in submission of charge-sheet, the entire proceedings in the matter are liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no offence as such is made out against the petitioner, and therefore, continuing proceedings in the matter would result in abuse of process of the Court. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar & Anr. [2009 (3) CCSC 1312 (SC)].
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant submits, in unison, that a bare reading of FIR, it is clearly discernible that it discloses commission of cognizable offence by the accused-persons, and therefore, no interference in the matter is warranted. Learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously urged that investigating agency has conducted a thorough investigation in the matter and, after collecting requisite incriminating evidence against the petitioner and other accused-persons, has submitted final report in the form of charge-sheet against them and, therefore, it is not desirable to interfere in the matter. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that, as the matter is pending before a competent court at this stage, no interference is warranted and the petitioner is well within his rights to approach the learned court below for raising his grievances, which would be considered by the court in accordance with law. Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor 9 as well as learned counsel for the complainant has submitted, in unison, that in the present case there is no semblance of proof about abuse of process of the Court, and therefore, interference in exercise of inherent powers is not warranted.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent-complainant and perused the entire materials available on record.
Before adverting to examine the matter on merits, it is worthwhile to note that most of the accused- persons, Rooplal, Abhishek, Ravi Mandawat, Abhishek Chandrayan, Dinesh Soni and Basant Kumar jointly filed a criminal petition before this Court challenging the impugned FIR and, after arguing for sometime, withdraw the same with liberty to file documents before the Investigating Officer. The aforesaid criminal misc. petition was registered as S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.3226/2014 and order for withdrawal of the aforesaid petition was passed on 15 th July, 2015, which reads as under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners wants to withdraw this misc. petition so as to file certain documents before the Investigating Officer. He is permitted to do so. Accordingly, this misc. petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file his all documents before the I.O. and it is expected from the I.O. that he will consider those documents during the investigation."10
That apart, Om Prakash and Dinesh Sahu, who are named in the FIR, have also filed two separate criminal misc. petitions challenging the impugned FIR and those petitions were registered as S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition Nos.2892/2015 and 2571/2015 respectively. A Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, after hearing counsel for these two incumbents, by a common order dated 16 th of December, 2015 dismissed both the criminal misc. petitions with a specific finding that it is not a fit case wherein Court can exercise inherent powers for interfering with the FIR under challenge. The order dated 16th of December, 2015 reads as under:-
"By way of these misc. petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR No.369/2014 registered at the Police Station Bhopalpura, Udaipur for the offences under Sections 206, 207, 209, 257, 258, 260, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.
Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant and after going through the impugned FIR as well as the factual report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case, wherein this Court can be persuaded to exercise its inherent powers for interfering in the 2 FIR under challenge. The petitioners are given liberty to submit a detailed representation to the Investigating Officer for the purpose of establishing their innocence. Upon such representation being submitted, the Investigating Officer shall thoroughly consider and account for the same while filing result of investigation in the concerned Court.
The misc. petitions and stay petitions are thus disposed of in the above terms."11
This being the position when vis-à-vis other accuse-persons Court has opined that it is not a fit case wherein inherent powers can be exercised, in my considered opinion, the task of the petitioner is obviously very difficult. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has made sincere endeavour to persuade the Court for exercising inherent power but I am loss to say that now in the changed scenario when investigation in the matter has been completed and final report i.e. charge-sheet against the petitioner has already been filed before a court of competent jurisdiction, it is not worthwhile to accede to the prayer of the petitioner.
The judgment in Md. Ibrahim (supra) is simply a case wherein sale-deed was executed in respect of a property not owned by the vendor, and therefore, the Supreme Court held:-
"When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. The term `fraud' is not defined in the Code. The dictionary definition of `fraud' is "deliberate deception, treachery or cheating intended to gain advantage". Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872 defines `fraud' with reference to a 12 party to a contract. In Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572, this Court explained the meaning of the expression `defraud' thus:
"The expression "defraud" involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied."
The above definition was in essence reiterated in State of U.P. v. Ranjit Singh 1999 (2) SCC 617."
If the checkered history of the instant case is examined threadbare, then it would, ipso facto, reveal that facts of the instant case are entirely different. In the instant case, the accused persons are not only charged for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 but they have also castigated for offence under Sections 206, 207, 209, 257, 258, 260 IPC. Offence under Sections 257, 258, 260, are obviously serious in nature inasmuch as the petitioner along with other accused persons is castigated for making or selling instrument for counterfeiting Government stamp, sale of counterfeiting Government stamp and using as genuine Government stamp known to be counterfeit. Therefore, looking to the nature of the offences attributed to the petitioner and the fact that during 13 investigation, prima facie, it is unearthed that petitioner was involved in commission of these serious offences, I am afraid, it is not a fit case wherein inherent powers can be exercised by this Court for quashing FIR as well as entire proceedings.
A bare perusal of the contents of FIR and the detailed factual report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor makes it abundantly clear that at this stage quashment of entire proceedings may result in grave justice inasmuch as it may result in preventing promotion of justice.
It is also noteworthy that vis-à-vis other accused persons, Co-ordinate Bench has recorded a finding that it is not a fit case wherein inherent powers can be exercised for interfering with the FIR is also a significant factor, which cannot lose sight of the Court to decline interference in the matter.
Therefore after thoroughly examining the matter, I am satisfied that instant one is not a case wherein inherent powers are to be exercised inasmuch as neither it is a case of abuse of process of the Court, nor a case wherein miscarriage of justice has occasioned.
Resultantly, petition fails and same is, hereby, dismissed.
(P.K. LOHRA) J.
a.asopa/-