Gauhati High Court
Mrs. Barasha Borah Bordoloi & Ors vs The State Of Assam & Ors on 26 June, 2012
Author: I A Ansari
Bench: I A Ansari
1
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MEGHALAYA;
MANIPUR; TRIPURA; MIZOAM & ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011
1.Mrs. Barasha Borah Bordoloi, W/O Shri Dharani Bordoloi, R/O Bairagi Math, Near Don Bosco School, P.O., P.S & Dist. Dibrugarh, Pin. 786 001, Assam.
2. Shri Dharani Bordoloi, S/O Late Dimbeswar Bordoloi, R/O Bairagi Math, Near Don Bosco School, P.O., P.S & Dist. Dibrugarh, Pin. 786 001, Assam.
Accused-Petitioners
- Versus -
1. State of Assam
2. Shri Diganta Borah, S/O Late Jonaram Borah, R/O Official Residence of Superintendent of Police, P.O. & Dist. Karimganj, Pin. 788 710, Assam.
Opposite parties.
PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I A ANSARI For the petitioners : Mr. AB Choudhury, Senior Advocate.
Mr. JP Sarma, Mr. W Imran, Mr. K Rahman, Mr. MK Sharma, Advocates.
For the Opp. Party-1: Mr. D Das, Addl. P.P, Assam.
For the Opp. Party-2: Mr. N Dutta, Senior Advocate.
Mr. AM Bora, Mr. N Borah, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 11.06.2012 Date of judgment : 26.06.2012 JUDGMENT & ORDER With the help of this application, made under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is an accused in Karimganj Police Section Case No. Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011 2 483 of 2011, under Sections 120B/384/385/389/353 IPC, read with Section 66A of the Information and Technology Act, 2008, has sought to get set aside and quashed the First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), which led to the registration of the case aforementioned.
2. I have heard Mr. AB Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, for the accused-petitioners, and Mr. D Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. I have also heard Mr. N Dutta, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. AM Bora, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the informant- opposite party No. 2.
3. Before entering into the merit of the present application, made under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the allegations, made by the informant, in his First Information Report (FIR), need to be taken note of. The case of the informant may, in brief, be set out as under:
(i) In the year 2008, when the informant was functioning as Additional Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Dibrugarh, he received, one day, a telephone call from a lady, who introduced herself as Mrs. Barsha Bordoloi, the then Inspector of Excise, Dibrugarh, (i.e., the petitioner No.1 herein), who requested the informant to extend police help for a raid to be conducted by excise personnel and the informant accordingly instructed his subordinates to do the needful. Later on, sometime in the month of February/March, 2009, when the informant stood posted as Superintendent of Police, Tinsukia, the petitioner No.1 herein called him up and, from then onwards, the informant started calling the informant up on different pretexts. Over a period of time, the informant realized that the petitioner No.1 herein had some ulterior motive and she had been trying to establish proximity with the informant in order to fulfill her unethical and unreasonable demands. The informant, thereafter, started avoiding the Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011 3 calls of the petitioner No.1, but the petitioner No. 1 herein started threatening and adopted blackmailing the informant by calling up and sending messages, through SMS, at odd hours of the night. The informant, in his FIR, alleges that the petitioner No.1 even called the informant's wife on her mobile number and threatened her by saying that she would spoil the informant's reputation and image if he did not agree to her demands.
(ii) The continuous calls, coming from the petitioner No.1, compelled the informant and his wife to change their mobile numbers, but the petitioner No.1 collected the phone numbers of the informant's near relatives, such as, his brother, mother, sister-in-law and started harassing and threatening them, too, by calling up and sending SMS. This apart, the petitioner No.1 started calling up the informant on the informant's residential telephone and she even called his subordinates, such as, PSOs and told them to convey to the informant that unless he received her calls and talked to her, she would lodge false complaint against him.
(iii) On 30-07-2010, the informant received a hand-written letter from the petitioner No.1 herein, the said letter having been handed over to the petitioners' the then Confidential Assistant at Tinsukia office. With the help of this letter, the petitioner No.1 threatened to destroy the informant's reputation and image unless he did what she said. Even on 30-09-2010, according to the informant, another hand-written letter was sent by the petitioner No.1, this letter, too, was delivered to the informant's Confidential Assistant, at Tinsukia, wherein also the petitioner No.1 allegedly demanded something, which was impossible for the informant to accept as the demand was unethical, immoral and unreasonable and even in this letter, claims the informant, the petitioner No.1, namely, Smt. Barasha Bora Bordoloi, threatened that unless he agreed to her demands, she would do anything to destroy his reputation. The informant also alleges that the petitioner No.1 collected his new mobile number and Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011 4 started calling him up and sending threatening messages, through SMS, from her mobile number demanding that the informant shall submit to her wild, illegal and unethical demands; but as the informant did not respond to the demand of the petitioner No.1, the petitioner No.1 started giving threatening calls and messages through SMS. The informant further alleges that when the petitioner No.1 did not succeed in compelling the informant to agree to her immoral and illegal demands, she entered into a criminal conspiracy with a few of her associates to extort money by putting the informant in fear of injury to his reputation, goodwill and social status by lodging false complaint against him and by using the media to tarnish his reputation. The informant accuses that the petitioner No.1 went to the extent of threatening that she would lodge false allegation of rape, molestation, etc, against the informant. The relevant portion of the FIR further reads thus, "On 19/08/2010 one lady visited my office at Tinsukia who introduced herself as Smt. Dipanjali Dutta, an advocate from Dibrugarh. She demanded that I should talk to Mrs. Barsha Bordoloi and arrived at a negotiated settlement which I refused. Then she left my office by giving a threat that I should be ready to face accusation of criminal charges of very serious nature. On 03/08/2011 again Smt. Dipanjali Dutta call up from mobile Number -
9954222739 at my mobile number 9678009954 and told me to immediately settle the matter with Mrs Barsha Bordoloi and give immediate delivery of the amount demanded by Mrs. Bordoloi; otherwise I should be ready to face the consequences of being accused in a false criminal case and also should be ready to face media trial which will destroy my reputation completely.
On different occasions I used to get calls and sms from a mobile number 9435002927. On confidential verification I cam to know that this number was being used by one namely Shri Dharani Bordoloi, who happens to be the husband of Mrs. Barsha Bordoloi. In one sms the sender asked me to talk to Mrs. Barsha Bordoloi and the sender's name was mentioned as Mrs Bordoloi's husband which Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011 5 means that Mr. Dharani Bordoloi is also a part of this whole game plan of extorting money through blackmailing.
On 28/07/2011 I received a call from mobile number 9435054275 but surprisingly the caller was Mrs. Barsha Bordoloi where she again asked me to settle the matter immediately otherwise she would go ahead with her plan of tarnishing my image. But I did not respond and I disconnected the phone. On the same day, I received 3 messages through sms from the said mobile number, i.e., 9435054275 where the sender introduced herself as Upasana Gogoi, wife of ex-MLA Shri Prabin Gogoi. In these messages Smt. Upasana asked me to sort out the issue with Mrs. Barsha Bordoloi immediately otherwise, she threatened of lodging false criminal cases against me. Thus it appears that Smt. Upasana Gogoi was also a party to this conspiracy of extorting money."
(iv) On the basis of the allegations made above, the informant concludes the FIR by saying that the petitioner No.1, along with her associates, has hatched a criminal conspiracy to extort money by putting the informant and his family in fear of injury to their reputation, making the informant face media trial and also face allegations of criminality of serious nature and that due to the illegal activities of the petitioner No.1 and her associates, the informant and his whole family are facing severe mental harassment, which is even affecting his attention to his duties. The informant accordingly names, in his FIR, the petitioner No.1, namely, Smt. Barasha Borah Bordoloi, and three others, namely, Shri Dharani Bordoloi, Smt. Dipanjali Dutta and Smt. Upasana Gogoi, as accused. The FIR, as mentioned above, had led to the registration of Karimganj Police Station Case No. 483 of 2011 on 30-08-2011.
4. The petitioners seek quashing of the FIR by pointing out that the petitioner No.1, namely, Smt. Barasha Bora Bordoloi, had already made a complaint, in writing, to the Director General of Police, Assam, as far back as on 19-05-2011, alleging to the effect, inter alia, thus: In the year 2008, Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011 6 the informant was Additional Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Dibrugarh, and she (that is, the petitioner No.1 herein) was an Inspector of Excise and, in the year 2009, both she (petitioner No. 1) and the informant came, on transfer, to Tinsukia and became good friends. On 27-03-2009, the informant invited the petitioner No. 1, namely, Mrs. Barasha Borah Bordoloi to Police Guest House, Tinsukia, by making calls and through SMS, on her mobile, to have some discussion and, without any second thought, the petitioner No. 1 met the informant as requested by the informant, but after a few minutes, the informant outraged her modesty forcibly, which shocked and surprised her, but she managed to leave the premises. However, on 10-05-2009, all of a sudden, the informant, according to the petitioner No. 1, visited her residence with his PSOs, at night, on way back from Dibrugarh to Tinsukia. At that time, the petitioner No. 1 was alone at home and the informant, taking advantage of the situation, forcibly established physical relation with her by overpowering her and threatening her and, thereafter, the informant kept visiting the petitioner No. 1, at Dibrugarh, every now and then and had physical relation with her by overpowering her and, out of fear, she could do nothing. It is also alleged, in her complaint, to the Director General of Police by the petitioner No. 1 that sensing her sufferings, the informant very cleverly convinced her that whatever he had done, he had done out of love and started thereby emotionally blackmailing her to escape legal consequences and the legal actions, which could have been taken against him by the petitioner No1. The further allegations, made by the petitioner No. 1, in her complaint to the Director General of Police, Assam, read as under:
"After few months my husband came to know about this and threatened to file a case and then SRI DIGANTA BORAH changed his Mobile Number and stopped communication although I tried Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011 7 hard to contact him to sort out the matter. Finally he started communication only to threaten me of dire consequences. He threatened me that he would shoot me & fabricate false case against me and my family members if I would take legal action against him.
I could not believe his words and requested him through sms, E-MAILS, LETTERS & CALLS to end my sufferings but in vain. I was very scared and hesitant to take any legal steps immediately because (1) he was the Superintendent of Police of the District where I too am posted and working and hence I waited helplessly out of fear.
But I approached the then Inspector General of Police of Eastern Range Dr. LR Bishnoi in this connection in September, 2010 and he is very much aware of it (2) I had to think about the prestige, security and reputation of my family (3) I was and till am very much confused as he used to blackmail me emotionally and otherwise to escape the probable legal consequences of the offence; committed by him and he is still continuing to do so. The impact of the same I am suffering from severe mental worries and agonies."
5. On the basis of her above allegations, the petitioner No. 1 submitted, in her above complaint, that the situation had reached such a position that she had been compelled to forward her complaint to the Director General of Police for necessary action against the informant for playing fraud with her chastity in the manner in which he had done so.
6. What, now, needs to be noted is that the complaint, which the petitioner No.1 had sent to the Director General of Police, Assam, as well as the FIR, which had been registered at Karimganj Police Station, as mentioned above, have both been given, for investigation, to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). Consequently, there are, now, two FIRs, one lodged by the petitioner No. 1, namely, Mrs. Barasha Borah Bordoloi, and the other by the opposite party No. 2, Sri Diganta Bora, and the investigations are presently pending.
Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011 8
7. As indicated above, the FIR, which has been lodged by the accused-opposite party No. 2 herein, namely, Sri Diganta Bora (who is being referred to as 'the informant'), is sought to get quashed by the present petitioners on the ground that the allegations, made in the FIR, by the accused-opposite party No. 2 herein, namely, Diganta Bora, are wholly false, manipulated, mala fide and as a counterblast to the complaint, made by the petitioner No. 1 herein, which is, now, being investigated by the CID. This apart, the petitioners have also placed on record typed copies of the SMS, which are claimed to have been sent by the accused-opposite party No. 2 to the present petitioner No. 1. The accused-opposite party No. 2, i.e., the informant, too, has produced before the Court a large number of typed SMS claiming the same to have been sent to his by the petitioner No. 1 herein.
8. While considering the present application made under Section 482 Cr.PC., it needs to be noted that the law, with regard to quashing of criminal complaint, is no longer res integra. A catena of judicial decisions has settled the position of law on this aspect of the matter. I may refer to the case of R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), wherein the question, which arose for consideration, was whether a first information report can be quashed under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held, on the facts before it, that no case for quashing of the proceeding was made out. Gajendragadkar, J, speaking for the Court, observed that though, ordinarily, criminal proceedings, instituted against an accused, must be tried under the provisions of the Code, there are some categories of cases, where the inherent jurisdiction of the Court can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. One such category, according to the Court, in R. P. Kapur (supra), consists Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011 9 of cases, where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases, no question of appreciating evidence arises and it is a matter merely of looking at the FIR or the complaint in order to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases, said the Court, it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal Court to be issued against the accused. From the case of R.P.Kapoor (Supra), it becomes abundantly clear that when a look into the contents of a complaint shows that the contents of the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted to be true in their entirety, do not disclose commission of offence, the complaint shall be quashed. Similarly, where an FIR does not disclose commission of an offence, the FIR has got to be quashed.
9. As a corollary to what has been discussed above, it is also clear that if the contents of the complaint disclose commission of offence, such a complaint cannot be, ordinarily, quashed nor can an FIR be, ordinarily, quashed if the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence.
10. Laying down the scope of interference by the High Court in matters of quashing of FIR or complaint, the Supreme Court, in State of Haryana and Ors. V. Bhajanlal and others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, laid down as follows :-
"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 of 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 Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011 10 power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the 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 of 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 entirely, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations made 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 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 allegation 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 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 Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011 11 an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance of the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal private grudge".
11. In the case of Bhajanlal (supra), the Supreme Court gave a note of caution, on the powers of quashing of criminal proceedings, in the following words :-
"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 extra ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice."
(Emphasis is added).
12. It is clear from a close reading of the principles laid down, in the case of R.P.Kapoor (supra) and Bhajanlal (supra), that broadly speaking, quashing of a First Information Report or a complaint is possible (a) when the allegations made, in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely as true, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) when the uncontroverted allegations, made in the FIR or complaint and evidence collected in support of the same, do not disclose the commission of any offence and/or make out a case against the accused; and (c) when the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of such absurd and inherently improbable allegations, no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011 12
13. In other words, when the allegations, made in an FIR, disclose commission of a cognizable offence, such an FIR cannot, ordinarily, be quashed by relying upon some other materials on which will depend the defence of the accused, for, in such cases, truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR or the probability of the defence plea can be determined only by effective investigation or at the trial.
14. However, in Harshendra Kumar D. vs. Rebatilata Kiley and others, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 351, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it is not an absolute rule of law that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, or, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC, cannot, under any circumstances, look into the nature of public document or such materials, which are beyond suspicion or doubt, in order to ascertain if the criminal prosecution should or should not be allowed to proceed. In fact, the Supreme Court has also made it clear, in Harshendra Kumar D. (supra), that no greater damage can be done to the reputation of a person than dragging him in a criminal case. The Supreme Court has, therefore, held, in Harshendra Kumar D. (supra), that the High Court fell into grave error in not taking into consideration the uncontroverted documents relating to the appellant's resignation from the post of director of the company, which, if looked into, would have made it clear that the appellant's resignation from the post of director of the company was much before the cheques had been issued by the company. The relevant observations, which appear, in this regard, at paragraph 25 and 26, in Harshendra Kumar D. (supra), read as under:
"25. In our judgment, the above observations cannot be read to mean that in a criminal case where trial is yet to take place and the matter is at the stage of issuance of summons or taking cognizance, materials relied upon by the accused, which are in the nature of public documents or the materials Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011 13 which are beyond suspension or doubt, in no circumstance, can be looked into by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 or for that matter in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code. It is fairly settled now that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 or revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code in a case where complaint is sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the High Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an inquiry in respect of merits of the accusations. However, in an appropriate case, if on the face of the documents - which are beyond suspension or doubt - placed by the accused, the accusations against him cannot stand, it would be travesty of justice if the accused is relegated to trial and he is asked to prove his defence before the trial court. In such a matter, for promotion of justice or to prevent injustice or abuse of process, the High Court may look into the materials which have significant bearing on the matter at prima facie stage.
26. Criminal prosecution is a serious matter; it affects the liberty of a person. No greater damage can be done to the reputation of a person than dragging him in a criminal case. In our opinion, the High Court fell into grave error in not taking into consideration the uncontroverted documents relating to the appellant's resignation from the post of Director of the Company. Had these documents been considered by the High Court, it would have been apparent that the appellant has resigned much before the cheques were issued by the Company."
(Emphasis is supplied)
15. From the law laid down in Harshendra Kumar D. (supra), it becomes clear that when the High Court is approached for quashing of a criminal prosecution in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, or in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC, the High Court has to bear in mind that criminal prosecution affects the liberty of a person and there can be no greater damage done to the reputation of a person than dragging him in a criminal case. There is, therefore, no absolute bar, on the High Court's power, to take into consideration any uncontroverted document, which may have come on record, for the Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011 14 purpose of arriving at a decision as to whether a criminal prosecution should or should not be allowed to continue and, if the Court, on the basis of any public or uncontroverted document, comes to the conclusion that allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed, in such a case, would amount to abuse of the process of the Court, the High Court has the duty to quash such a proceeding.
16. It is, no doubt, true that while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, or its revisional jurisdiction, under Section 397 CrPC, where a complaint or FIR is sought to be quashed, it is not proper, on the part of the High Court, to consider the defence of the accused or enquire into the correctness or veracity of the accusations made against the accused. Nonetheless, in appropriate cases, if, in the face of the documents placed by the accused, which are beyond suspicion or doubt, the accusations against the accused cannot stand, it would be travesty of justice if the accused is asked to face trial, for, if it is so done, it would amount to denial of justice and would be tantamount to preventing justice from being done. This would be nothing short of abuse of the process of the Court.
17. Coupled with the above, there is no doubt that an FIR or a complaint may be quashed if the same is found to be actuated by mala fide (See. Hira Lal and others -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 89) or if the FIR or the complaint makes accusations, which are so absurd or inherently improbable that no reasonable man would accept the allegations, made in the FIR or the complaint, as the case may be, as true and/or in a case, where the FIR and/or the complaint, as the case may be, is lodged as a counterblast. (See. MN Ojha & others -vs- Alok Kumar Srivastav & others, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682). The FIR or a Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011 15 complaint may even be quashed, when the same is used as a weapon of harassment or persecution (See. State of Karnataka -vs- L. Muniswamy, (AIR 1977 SC 1489); but an FIR or a complaint shall be quashed, as held in Bhajanlal (supra), very sparingly and with great circumspection and that too, in the rarest of rare cases.
18. In the backdrop of the position of law as delineated above, when one comes to the FIR, which the accused-opposite party No. 2 herein (who is being referred to as 'the informant') has lodged, it can be clearly seen that the contents of this FIR, when read as a whole and assumed to be true (as laid down in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. -vs- Bhajanlal and others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), do make out commission of cognizable offence. The allegations, so made in the impugned FIR, when assumed to be true, cannot be said to contain such allegations, which are absurd and/or inherently improbable. In a situation, such as, the present one, the FIR, in question, cannot be quashed.
19. Though it had been contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that the impugned FIR does not disclose as to how much amount had been demanded by the present petitioner, what needs to be borne in mind is that the details of an offence need not to be mentioned in the FIR or the complaint, as the case may be. It is well settled that an FIR need not be encyclopedia of the prosecution's case nor shall a complaint be encyclopedia of the complainant's case. Investigation would reveal as to whether any money was demanded or not or if so, what amount had been demanded.
20. While considering an application, seeking quashing of an FIR, one has also bear in mind, as observed in Indian Oil Corpn. V. NEPC India Ltd. Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011 16 and others, reported in (2006) SCC 736, that while considering any application for quashing of FIR or complaint, the Court has to assume the allegations, made therein, as true and shall not examine the merit of the allegations.
21. Coupled with the above, one can also not ignore the fact that the petitioner No. 1 herein, too, has filed a complaint as indicated above and the same, having been treated as FIR, has given rise to a case against the accused-opposite party No.2 herein. When both the cases are being investigated, it would neither be permissible nor in the interest of justice that the investigation, in one of the cases, be scuttled by quashing the FIR and, at the same time, the investigation into other FIR, which the petitioner No.1 herein has lodged, to be allowed to proceed. Such a course of action is, as already indicated hereinbefore, neither permissible nor warranted by the facts of the present case.
22. Though the possibility of the impugned FIR having been lodged as a counter blast may not be wholly untrue, yet what cannot be overlooked, at this stage, is that in order to enable this Court to quash the impugned FIR on the ground that the same is lodged as a counter blast, it is not enough to say that the impugned FIR is subsequent to the complaint, which the petitioner No.1 herein had made to the Director General of Police. The aim of an investigation or the object of a trial is to reach the truth and do justice. In order to render justice, determination of truth is imperative and this goal cannot be reached unless there is fair, impartial, proper and effective investigation in both the cases aforementioned, which the CID is presently investigating. It would be too pre-mature, on the part of this Court, to quash the impugned FIR by taking recourse to its power conferred by Section 482 Cr.P.C. and, at the same time, let the FIR, Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011 17 which has been registered on the basis of the complaint, made by the petitioner No.1 herein, to be investigated. Resorting to such a course of action would be reflective of a sense of bias and prejudice against the informant of the impugned FIR. Such a course of action would also be in negation of the justice delivery system inasmuch as it would indicate as if this Court has made up its mind and already decided that the informant of the impugned FIR is guilty, though a Court has to proceed on the basis of assumption that the contents of the impugned FIR are true, unless the Court can, boldly and confidently, conclude and hold that the allegations, made in the impugned FIR, are wholly untrue or mala fide or as a counterblast to the complaint, which has given rise to the case against the informant of the impugned FIR.
23. Situated thus, this Court is convinced that at this stage, the quashing of the impugned FIR is not legally possible. At the same time, the Court must ensure, as already mentioned above, that fair and effective investigation be conducted so that the petitioner No.1 herein, who is not from the police force of the State, does not become a victim.
24. While, therefore, the prayer for quashing of the impugned FIR, in exercise of this Court's powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is hereby declined and this application, made under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed, the Inspector General of Police, Prosecution, is hereby directed to ensure that the investigation by the CID, in both the cases aforementioned, are conducted in fair, impartial and effective manner and that the investigating agency is not allowed to be manipulated by any one.
Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011 18
25. With the above observations and directions, this criminal petition shall stand disposed of.
26. Send back the LCR.
JUDGE Paul-dutt Criminal Petition No. 554 of 2011