SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dalip Kumar vs State on 2 December, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6330/2019

Dalip Kumar S/o Shri Girdawar, Aged About 39 Years, By Caste
Jat, R/o Goriwala, Tehsil Dabwali District Sirsa (Haryana).

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State, Through Pp

2. Poonam W/o Dalip Kumar D/o Bhagirath, By Caste Jat,
R/o Hardaswali, Tehsil Rawatsar District Hanumangarh.

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, P.P.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

26/11/2019

Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for

quashing of FIR No. 440/2019 registered at Police Station

Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh for offence under Sections 498A,

406 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage

between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized in the year

2009 and after some time, the respondent no.2 herself left the

petitioner and thereafter, she filed divorce petition under Section

13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before filing the FIR in which she has

not made any allegation with regard to cruelty or harassment and

now this false FIR has been registered against the petitioner to

put undue pressure upon the petitioner. Therefore, the FIR may be

quashed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner

placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

(Downloaded on 02/12/2019 at 08:49:49 PM)
(2 of 8) [CRLMP-6330/2019]

of Raghuvir Vs. State of Rajasthan Anr. reported in 2018 (Suppl)

Cr.L.R (SC) 328.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that specific

allegation has been levelled against the petitioner in the FIR with

regard to harass and demand of dowry, 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.

The respondent complainant in the FIR has specifically

stated that soon after marriage, the petitioner started harassing

the complainant and demanded dowry. It is alleged that petitioner

used to consume liquor and beat the complainant and she was

also not provided food and lock in the room. It is alleged that the

petitioner also used to lock their small girl child in the room. It is

also stated that the petitioner beaten the complainant and

demanded a sum of Rs. 2 lacs and vehicle and refused to keep the

complainant at his house. Thus, upon perusal of FIR, specific

allegation has been levelled against the present petitioner,

therefore, at the stage of investigation, no case for quashing of

FIR is made out in this case. It is also relevant to mention that

prior to lodging complaint against the petitioner, the respondent

complainant had filed divorce petition under Section 13(i) of the

Hindu Marriage Act and in the said petition also, the complainant

has specifically mentioned the harassment and cruelty meted out

to her by the petitioner due to which she is forced to file the

divorce petition.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana

Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal Ors. : 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335],

(Downloaded on 02/12/2019 at 08:49:49 PM)
(3 of 8) [CRLMP-6330/2019]

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 02/12/2019 at 08:49:49 PM)
(4 of 8) [CRLMP-6330/2019]

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

(Downloaded on 02/12/2019 at 08:49:49 PM)
(5 of 8) [CRLMP-6330/2019]

arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to
its whim or caprice.”

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

(Downloaded on 02/12/2019 at 08:49:49 PM)
(6 of 8) [CRLMP-6330/2019]

finding out the commission of a cognizable offence, the High Court

is only required to look into the allegations made in the complaint

or the F.I.R.

In a subsequent decision, Vinod Raghuvanshi Vs. Ajay Arora

Ors. : (2013) 10 SCC 581], in a case under the Prevention of

Corruption Act, Supreme Court affirmed the order passed by the

High Court whereby it declined to exercise inherent powers for

quashment of criminal proceedings. The Court observed:

“It is a settled legal proposition that while considering
the case for quashing of the criminal proceedings the
court should not “kill a still born child”, and
appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless
there are compelling circumstances to do so. An
investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if
the allegations have some substance. When a
prosecution at the initial stage is to be quashed, the
test to be applied by the court is whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie
establish the offence. At this stage neither can the
court embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations
in the complaint are likely to be established by
evidence nor should the court judge the probability,
reliability or genuineness of the allegations made
therein. More so, the charge-sheet filed or charges
framed at the initial stage can be altered/amended or
a charge can be added at the subsequent stage, after
the evidence is adduced in view of the provisions of
Section 216 CrPC. So, the order passed even by the
High Court or this Court is subject to the order which
would be passed by the trial Court at a later stage.”

(Downloaded on 02/12/2019 at 08:49:49 PM)

(7 of 8) [CRLMP-6330/2019]

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].”

So far as the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the

petitioner in the case of Raghuvir (Supra) is concerned, the same

does not help the petitioner inasmuch as in the said case, the

appellant had lodged a complaint before the Police authorities

apprehending lodging of false complaint against him and his family

members and accordingly, a complaint came to be lodged against

the appellant and his family members. In the present case, the

respondent complainant right from the inception, in the divorce

petition under Section 13(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act so also in

(Downloaded on 02/12/2019 at 08:49:49 PM)
(8 of 8) [CRLMP-6330/2019]

the FIR, has specifically levelled allegation against the petitioner

husband with regard to harassment and cruelty meted out to her.

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. 440/2019 registered at Police Station

Rawatsar, Distt. Hanumangarh is made out. Hence, this misc.

petition is hereby dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

283-BJSH/-

(Downloaded on 02/12/2019 at 08:49:49 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation