Himachal Pradesh High Court
Nancy Bhatt And Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 6 April, 2015
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
Cr. MMO No. 183 of 2014 Judgment reserved on: 02.04.2015 Date of decision : April 6, 2015 ____________________________________________________________ Nancy Bhatt and another ...Petitioners.
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another ...Respondents.
Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. V.K.Verma, Mr. Rupinder Singh, Addl. A.Gs., with Ms. Parul Negi, Dy.
A.G. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge The petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C.have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of FIR No. 16 of 2014 registered at Police Station, Solan on 20.1.2014 under Sections 498-A 506 read with Section 34 IPC on the ground that the same is gross abuse of process of law and even if the contents are taken on the face value, the same do not disclose the commission of any offence much less the offence for which the petitioners have been charged.
2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents that once the FIR has culminated in charge-sheet, the present petition has been rendered infructuous, because it is not the ____________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:56:48 :::HCHP 2 FIR but the chargesheet which forms the basis of criminal trial.
.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case carefully.
4. In State of Punjab vs. Dharam Vir Singh Jethi 1994 SCC (Cri.) 500, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the chargesheet was submitted, quashing of FIR is not permissible since it would be open to the Court to refuse to frame charge. It was observed as under:
"2. Heard learned counsel for the State as well as the contesting respondent. We are afraid that the High Court was not right in quashing the First Information Report on the plea that the said respondent had no role to play and was never the custodian of the paddy in question. In fact it was averred in the counter-affidavit filed in the High Court that the said respondent had acted in collusion with Kashmira Singh resulting in the latter misappropriating the paddy in question. At the relevant point of time the respondent concerned, it is alleged, was in overall charge of the Government Seed Farm, Trehan. This allegation forms the basis of the involvement of the respondent concerned. The High Court was, therefore, wrong in saying that the respondent concerned had no role to play. A specific role is assigned to him, it may be proved or may fail. In any case, pursuant to the First Information Report the investigation was undertaken and a charge sheet or a police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed in the court. If the investigation papers annexed to the charge sheet do not disclose the commission of any crime by the respondent concerned, it would be open to the court to refuse to frame a charge, but quashing of the First Information Report was not permissible.
5. In Vineet Narain and others vs. Union of India and another (1996) 2 SCC 199, the Supreme Court after refusing to quash the FIR, held that when a chargesheet was filed in the competent Court, it is that Court alone which will then deal with the case on merits, in accordance with law.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:56:48 :::HCHP 36. This legal position has been reiterated in number of cases.
.
(See: Anukul Chandra Pradhan vs. Union of India and others (1996) 6 SCC 354 and Jakia Nasim Ahesan and another vs. State of Gujarat and others (2011) 12 SCC 302).
7. Admittedly the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence.
It is information of a cognizable offence given under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code'). The legislature in its wisdom under the provisions of the Code has given limited/restrictive power to the Court to intervene at the stage of investigation by the police. Investigation is the exclusive domain of the police. Ordinarily, it is only when the charge sheet is filed that the Court is empowered either to take cognizance and to frame charge or to refuse to do the same.
8. The FIR is the sheet anchor on the basis of which the investigation ensues. However, once the FIR on the basis of which the investigation was initiated has culminated into a chargesheet, the FIR does not remain the sheet anchor because the same alone then cannot be read and has to be read along with the material gathered by the investigating agency during the course of the investigation.
9. It would, therefore, not be permissible for this Court to quash the FIR or else that would amount to annihilating a still born prosecution by going into the merits on the plea of proof of the prima facie case. Further, adverting to those facts and giving findings on merits would otherwise result in the grossest error of law because this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code cannot undertake pre-trial of a criminal case.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:56:48 :::HCHP 410. The learned counsel for the petitioners would however .
argue that it was on account of misrepresentation made by respondent No.2 to the effect that the parties were working towards an amicable settlement that the matter was repeatedly adjourned and now the charge-sheet has been presented.
11. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted because a perusal of the order-sheet discloses that it was on the joint representation of the parties that the case was repeatedly adjourned on the pretext that there were chances of amicable settlement.
12. As a matter of fact, it was on the joint request of the parties that a learned Senior Advocate of this Court was appointed as a mediator vide order dated 17.10.2014. On 21.11.2014 the parties jointly requested for adjournment. On 28.11.2014, the petitioner sought adjournment. When the case was taken up thereafter on 5.12.2014, it was again at the joint request of the parties that the matter was adjourned and ordered to be listed on 2.1.2015 on which date the petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 were directed to remain present.
It was eventually on 2.1.2015 that the parties represented that no amicable settlement could be worked out and the case accordingly was then fixed for final hearing.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the preliminary objection raised by the respondents is upheld and accordingly the present petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to avail of any other remedy which may be available to them under the law. Needless to add that any observation made hereinabove shall not ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:56:48 :::HCHP 5 be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the .
learned trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.
April 6, 2015 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
(GR) Judge
r to
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:56:48 :::HCHP