SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Date Of Decision: 12.07.2018 vs Coram: on 12 July, 2018





Cr. MMO No.:                   246 of 2017

Reserved on:                     27.06.2018

Date of Decision:              12.07.2018
Lt. Col. Ran Vijay Singh and another ….Petitioners.


State of Himachal Pradesh and others


r to …..Respondents.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. 

For the petitioners: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate. 

For the respondents: M/s Sanjeev Sood  Desh Raj Thakur, 
Additional Advocate Generals, for respondents 
No. 1 to 4.      

Mr.  N.   S.  Chandel,   Advocate,   for   respondent  

No. 5.    


Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge:


By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for the following


“Keeping   in   view   the   above   mentioned   peculiar
facts   and   circumstances   of   the   present   case,

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

16/07/2018 23:01:24 :::HCHP


therefore,   it   is   respectfully   prayed   that   the


present petition may kindly be allowed and  the

FIR   No.   32/2016   dated   06.03.2017   under
Sections  379 and 34 IPC and  FIR No. 69/2017

dated   03.06.2017   under   Sections
420,468,470,471   and   120B   IPC   registered   at
Police   Station  Gagret,  District  Una,  H.P.  against
the   petitioners   may   kindly   be   quashed   and

criminal proceedings pertaining to these FIRs be
quashed and set aside, being an inherent power

of this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice and

fair play. 

Any   other   order   or   directions   which   this
Hon’ble   Court   may   deem   fit   and   proper   in   the

peculiar   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   present
case   may   kindly   be   passed   in   favour   of   the
petitioners in the interest of justice and fair play.”

2. The   case   of   the   petitioners,   who   are   husband

and   wife,   is   that   a   General   Power   of   Attorney   as   also   a   Special

Power of Attorney were executed in favour of petitioner No. 1 by

respondent No. 5, who is his real uncle. As per the petitioners, the

attorneys were executed in view of the fact that respondent No. 5

was residing in United States of America and was a Non­Resident

Indian   (NRI).   As   per   petitioner   No.   1,   on   the   strength   of   said

attorneys, he undertook renovation of ancestral property by way of

16/07/2018 23:01:24 :::HCHP

raising loan for the said purpose. Further case of the petitioners is


that   respondent   No.   5   arrived   in   India   on   03.01.2017   and

thereafter, with an intent to grab the entire ancestral property, he

hatched   a   conspiracy   by   way   of   lodging   two   FIRs   against   the

petitioners,   i.e.   FIR   No.   32/2017,   dated   06.03.2017,   under

Sections   379   and   34   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   and   FIR   No.

69/2017, dated 03.06.2017, under Sections 420,468,470,471 and

120­B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Gagret, District

Una.   Further   as   per   the   petitioners,   they   always   considered

respondent No. 5 to be their well wisher and were completely taken

back   by   lodging   of   said   FIRs   and   after   they   realized   the   ill­

intentions of respondent No. 5, who thereafter committed trespass

over   the   property   of   the   petitioners   and   also   destroyed   their

property,   the   petitioners   also   lodged   FIR   No.   34/2017,   dated

08.03.2017 against respondent No. 5, under Sections 448 and 427

of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   at   Police   Station   Gagret,   District   Una.

According to the petitioners, they had brought to the notice of the

authorities concerned that they had been falsely roped in by way of

lodging of false FIRs against them by respondent No. 5. Further as

per the petitioners,  the contents of the FIRs which stand lodged

against them by respondent No. 5 demonstrate that not only the

said  FIRs   are  time  barred,   but   even   otherwise,   at   the   most,  the

16/07/2018 23:01:24 :::HCHP

dispute   between   the   petitioners   and   respondent   No.   5   is   a   civil


dispute,   which   involves   the   ancestral   property   of   the   petitioners

and respondent No. 5 and therefore, the said FIRs deserve to be

quashed.   It   is  further   the     case   of   petitioner   No.   1   that   he   is   a

serving   Indian   Army   officer   and   the   purpose   of   registering   false

FIRs against him is to coerce him which is evident from the fact

that   even   the   wife   of   the   petitioner   No.   1   has   also   been   falsely

implicated in a criminal case. 


I   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and   have

also   perused   the   FIRs,   subject   matter   of   the   present   petition,   as   also

other   documents   which   stand   appended   with   the   same.   Records   of

investigation also stand perused. 

4. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to take note of the

fact   that   taking   into   consideration   the   close   relationship   between

petitioners and respondent No. 5, efforts were made by this Court to have

the matter amicably settled between the parties by way of mediation, but

the same did not yield positive result. 

5. Prayer   made   in   the   petition   is   for   quashing   of   two   FIRs,

therefore,   before   I   proceed   further,   it   is   relevant   to   take   note   of   the

contents of the FIRs. 

6. It is alleged in FIR No. 32/2017, dated 06.03.2017 that the

complainant was a Non­Resident Indian and also a resident of America.

16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP


As per the complainant, he returned to India alongwith his wife on 3 rd


January,   2017   after   a   period   of   five   years.   Thereafter,   he   visited   his

relatives   at   Delhi   and   Palampur.   On   05.03.2017,   when   he   reached   at

Daulatpur, where his house is, he discovered that his one Royal Enfield

Motorcycle   bearing   registration   No.   HP­19A­7523,   one   Hero   Passion

Motorcycle   without   number,   one   Air   Conditioner   of   Samsung   company

and Stabilizer of Voltas company were missing. He was told by  Parveen

Kumar, Diler Singh, Amit Thakur and Sunil Kanwar that in December,

2012 when the complainant was in America, the accused had committed

theft of the above mentioned articles of the complainant and that they

were witnesses to the same. According to the complainant, he was told by

the   above   mentioned   persons   that   when   they   made   inquiries   from   the

accused as to why he was taking away the valuables of the complainant,

the accused told them that he had purchased the said Motorcycles and

he was taking them away to have the same registered in his name. It is

further mentioned in the FIR that the fact of theft having been committed

by the   accused could not be intimated by the witnesses immediately to

the complainant, as the witnesses were not having the address etc. of the

complainant. It is further mentioned in the same by the complainant that

he had also come to know that the accused had committed other frauds

with his relatives as also with the complainant and therefore, action be

taken against the accused. 

16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP


7. Similarly,   in   FIR   No.   69/2017   dated   03.06.2017,   it   is


mentioned   that   the   complainant   was   a   Green   Card   holder   of   United

States of America and was a Non­resident Indian. It is further mentioned

in the FIR that his wife Debrah Lynn Kanwar was a permanent resident

of United States of America. Complainant had constructed his house in

Ward No. 7 at Daulatpur Chowk, Tehsil Ghanari, District Una and had

also   installed   an   electric   meter   from   the   Himachal   Pradesh   State

Electricity Board in the garage of his house. As per the complainant, he

was exclusive owner of a  pakki  constructed lintel posh  abadi  alongwith

garage of vehicles. Further as per the complainant, he returned to India

alongwith   his   wife   on   3rd  January,   2017   after   a   period   of   five   years.

Thereafter,   he   visited   his   relatives   at   Delhi   and   Palampur.   On

05.03.2017,   when   he   reached   at   Daulatpur,   where   his   house   is,   he

discovered that the accused in conspiracy with each other and without

the  consent   of   the   complainant,  had   dishonestly   deceived   and   cheated

the complainant and got the electricity meter of the garage transferred in

the name of accused No. 1 and they had also prepared forged documents

in the absence of the complainant with intention to transfer the electricity

meter of the complainant in the name of accused No. 1. According to the

complainant, he applied for information under the Right to Information

Act and after receiving the same, he was shocked to see the documents

which were produced by accused No. 1 in conspiracy with accused No. 2,

16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP

i.e., wife of accused No. 1 for transfer of the said meter, taking advantage


of the fact that the complainant and his wife were out of India from 2012

to   2016.   As   per   the   complainant,   to   get   the   meter   transferred   in   his

name,   the   accused   has   forged   an   affidavit   of   the   complainant   dated

18.10.2016   by   forging   the   signatures   of   the   complainant.   In   these

circumstances, it stands mentioned in the FIR that an appropriate action

be   taken   against   the   accused   for   commission   of   offences   punishable

under Sections 420, 468, 470, 471 and 120­B of the Indian Penal Code. 


Before   proceeding   further,   it   is   relevant   to   take   into

consideration the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the

principles and the parameters stand laid down with regard to exercise of

inherent powers so conferred upon the High Court under Section 482 of

the  Code   of  Criminal  Procedure,   more  so,   in  the  matters   pertaining  to

quashing of FIRs. 

9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs.

Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 has

held as under:

“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

16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP

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


r to
and   to   give   an   exhaustive   list   of   myriad   kinds   of
cases wherein such power should be exercised.

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 prima­facie 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 F.I.R. 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 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   F.I.R.   do
not   constitute   a   cognizable   offence   but   constitute
only   a   non­cognizable   offence,   no   investigation   is
permitted   by  a   police   officer   without   an   order  of   a
Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of
the Code.

16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP


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

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 F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary
or   inherent   powers   do   not   confer   an   arbitrary
jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim
or caprice.”

10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of A.P.  Vs. Golconda Linga

Swamy  and  another, (2004)  6 Supreme Court  Cases  522 has held as


16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP


“5. Exercise of power under  Section 482  of


the  Code   in a  case  of   this   nature  is  the   exception

and   not   the  rule. The  Section  does  not  confer any
new   powers   on   the   High   Court.   It   only   saves   the

inherent   power   which   the   Court   possessed   before
the   enactment   of   the   Code.   It   envisages   three
circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction
may   be   exercised,   namely,   (i)   to   give   effect   to   an

order   under   the   Code,   (ii)   to   prevent   abuse   of   the
process   of   court,   and   (iii)   to   otherwise   secure   the

ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to

lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the
exercise   of   inherent   jurisdiction.   No   legislative
enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all

cases   that   may   possibly   arise.   Courts,   therefore,
have inherent powers apart from express provisions
of law which are necessary for proper discharge of

functions   and   duties   imposed   upon   them   by   law.

That   is   the   doctrine   which   finds   expression  in   the
Section   which   merely   recognizes   and   preserves

inherent   powers   of   the   High   Courts.   All   courts,
whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of
any   express   provision,   as   inherent   in   their
constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do
the   right   and   to   undo   a   wrong   in   course   of
administration of justice on the principle quando lex
aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res
ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a person

16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP

anything it gives him that  without  which it cannot


exist).   While   exercising   powers   under   the   Section,

the Court does not function as a court of appeal or
revision.   Inherent   jurisdiction   under   the   Section

though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully
and   with   caution   and   only   when   such   exercise   is
justified   by   the   tests   specifically   laid   down   in   the
Section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae

to   do   real   and   substantial   justice   for   the
administration of which alone courts exist. Authority

of the court exists for advancement of justice and if

any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to
produce   injustice,   the   court   has   power   to   prevent
such abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the

court   to   allow   any   action   which   would   result   in
injustice   and   prevent   promotion   of   justice.   In
exercises of the powers court would be justified to

quash   any   proceeding   if   it   finds   that   initiation   or

continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of
court   or   quashing   of   these   proceedings   would

otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence
is   disclosed   by   the   complaint,   the   court   may
examine  the question of  fact. When a complaint  is
sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into
the   materials   to   assess   what   the   complainant   has
alleged and whether any offence is made out even if
the allegations are accepted in toto.”

16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP


11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Pratibha    Vs.  Rameshwari


Devi   and   others,   (2007)   12   Supreme   Court   Cases     369   has   held   as


“12. From   the   principles   laid   down   in   the
abovementioned decisions, it is clear that the Court
is   entitled   to   exercise   its   inherent   jurisdiction   for

quashing a criminal proceeding or an FIR when the
allegations   made   in   the   same   do   not   disclose   the
commission of an offence and that it depends upon

the facts and circumstances of each particular case.

We also feel it just and proper to refer to a leading
decision of this court reported in State of Haryana
Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Suppl. {1} SCC 335] in which

this court pointed out certain category of cases by
way   of   illustrations   wherein   the   inherent   power
under   Section   482   of   the   Code   can   be   exercised

either to prevent abuse of the process of any court

or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The same
are as follows :­

(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
unde   Section   156(1)   of   the   Code   except   under   an

16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP

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 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
non­cognizable   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

(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  malafide   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.

16. It is pertinent to note that the complaint
was   filed   only   when   all   efforts   to   return   to   the
matrimonial   home   had   failed   and   the   respondent
No.2­husband   had   filed   a   divorce   petition   under

16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP

Section 13  of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That


apart, in our view, filing of a divorce petition in a

Civil  Court   cannot  be  a   ground  to   quash  criminal
proceedings under Section 482 of the Code as it is

well settled that criminal and civil proceedings are
separate and independent and the pendency of a
civil proceeding cannot bring to an end a criminal
proceeding even if they arise out of the same set of

facts. Such being the position, we are, therefore, of
the   view   that   the   High   Court   while   exercising   its

powers   under  Section   482  of   the   Code   has   gone

beyond   the   allegations   made   in   the   FIR   and   has
acted in excess of its jurisdiction and, therefore, the
High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR by

going beyond the allegations made in the FIR or by
relying on extraneous considerations.”

12. The   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in  Vakil   Prasad   Singh  Vs.

State of Bihar, (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases  355 has held as under:

“14. Before adverting to the core issue, viz.

whether   under   the   given   circumstances   the
appellant was entitled to approach the High Court
for   getting the entire criminal proceedings against
him quashed, it would be appropriate to notice the
circumstances and the parameters enunciated and
reiterated   by   this   Court   in   a   series   of   decisions
under   which   the   High   Court   can   exercise   its

16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP

inherent   powers   under Sections   482 Cr.P.C.   to


prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise

to secure the ends of justice. 

15. The   power   possessed   by   the   High

Court under the said provision is undoubtedly very
wide   but   it   has   to   be   exercised   in   appropriate
cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial
justice   for   the   administration   of   which   alone   the

courts exist. The inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary   jurisdiction   on   the   High   Court   to   act

according to whim or caprice. It is trite to state that

the   said   powers   have   to   be   exercised   sparingly
and   with   circumspection   only   where   the   court   is
convinced, on the basis of material on record, that

allowing the proceedings to continue would be an
abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of
justice   require   that   the   proceedings   ought   to   be

quashed. [See: Kurukshetra University  Anr. Vs.

State   of   Haryana     Anr.1,   Janata   Dal   Vs.   H.S.
Chowdhary  Ors.2, and State of Haryana  Ors.

Vs. Bhajan Lal  Ors.”

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash and others Vs.

State of Jharkhand  through  the Secretary,  Department of  Home,

Ranchi 1 and another, (2012) 12 Supreme Court Cases 72 has held as


16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP


“43. In our considered opinion, in view of the


facts   which   we   have   discussed   hereinabove,   no

inference can be drawn in this case that the police
action is indefensible or vindictive or that the police

were not acting in discharge of their official duty. In
Zandu   Pharmaceutical   Works   Limited,   this   Court
has   held   that   the   power   under Section   482 of   the

Code   should   be   used   sparingly   and   with
circumspection to prevent abuse of process of court
but not to stifle legitimate prosecution. There can be

no   two   opinions   on   this,   but,   if   it   appears   to   the

trained   judicial   mind   that   continuation   of   a
prosecution would lead to abuse of process of court,
the   power   under Section   482 of   the   Code   must   be

exercised   and   proceedings   must   be   quashed.
Indeed, the instant case is one of such cases where

the   proceedings   initiated   against   the   police
personnel need to be quashed. In the circumstances,

we   dismiss   the   appeal   filed   by   the   complainant
Kailashpati Singh. We allow the appeal filed by Om

Prakash, Pradeep Kumar, Shyam Bihari Singh and
Bharat Shukla and set aside the impugned order to
the extent it dismisses Cr.M.P.No.822 of 2005 filed
by   them   for   quashing   order   dated   14/06/2005
passed   by   Judicial   Magistrate,   1st   Class,
Jamshedpur,   in   Complaint   Case   No.731   of   2004
issuing process against them. We quash Complaint

16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP

Case No. 731 of 2004 pending on the file of Judicial


Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.”

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anup Sarmah Vs. Bhola Nath

Sharma   and   others,  (2013)   1   Supreme   Court   Cases   400  has   held   as


“4. In  Sardar   Trilok   Singh   v.   Satya   Deo

Tripathi  AIR   1979   SC   850  this   Court   examined   a
similar   case   wherein   the   truck   had   been   taken   in

possession   by   the   financier   in   terms   of   hire­

purchase   agreement,   as   there   was   a   default   in
making the payment of instalments. A criminal case
had   been   lodged   against   the   financier   under

Sections   395,   468,   465,   471,   120­b/34   IPC.  The
Court   refused   to   exercise   its   power   under   Section
482   Cr.PC   and   did   not   quash   the   criminal

proceedings   on   the   ground   that   the   financier   had

committed an offence. However, reversing the said
judgment, this Court held that proceedings initiated

were clearly an abuse of process of the court. The
dispute involved was purely of civil nature, even if
the   allegations   made   by   the   complainant   were
substantially   correct.   Under   the   hire­purchase
agreement, the financier had made the payment of
huge   money   and   he   was   in   fact   the   owner   of   the
vehicle. The terms and conditions incorporated in the
agreement gave rise in case of dispute only to civil

16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP

rights and in such a case, the civil court must decide


as   to   what   was   the   meaning   of   those   terms   and


15. The   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in  Lokesh   Kumar   Jain  Vs.

State of Rajasthan,  (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 130 has held as



Having   regard   to   the   factual   scenario,
noted above, and for the reasons stated below, we

are   of   the   opinion   that   the   present   case   of   the

appellant   is   one   of   the   fit   cases   where   the   High
Court   should   have   exercised   its   power
under Section 482 Cr.PC. It is not disputed by the

respondent   that   the   departmental   proceeding   was
initiated   against   the   appellant   with   regard   to
identical   charges   made   in the   FIR.  It  was  alleged

that   as   per   CAG   Inquiry   Report   dated   15th

December,   2008   Rs.4,39,617/­   has   been
misappropriated by the appellant, all the copies of

original   bills   and   documents   are   available   in   the
office   of   CAG   and   the   original   documents   are
available   in   the   office   of   the   Directorate,   State
Literacy Programme.”


16. A perusal of the law so declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court

categorically and clearly lays down that the powers of quashing criminal

16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP

proceedings   should   be   exercised   very   sparingly   depending   upon   the


peculiar facts of the case. Hon’ble Supreme court has further held that

while exercising  inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, it is not for the High court to appreciate the evidence

and its truthfulness or sufficiency inasmuch as it is the function of the

trial   Court.   Hon’ble   Supreme   court   has   further   laid   down   that   if   it

appears to the trained judicial mind that continuation of a prosecution

would lead to abuse of process of Court, the power under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure must be exercised and proceedings must

be quashed. However, there is a caution which has been so reiterated on

more than one occasions by the Hon’ble Supreme court and the same is

to the effect that the said power has to be exercised by the High Court

very   sparingly   and   with   circumspection   and   also   in   the   rarest   of   rare

cases.   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   has   further   held   that   this   inherent

jurisdiction has to be exercised: (a) to give effect to an order under the

Code; (b) to prevent abuse of the process of Court; and (c) to otherwise

secure the ends of justice. It has also held that it is neither possible nor

desirable to lay down any flexible rule which would govern the exercise of

inherent jurisdiction.   

17.   Now,   coming   to   the   facts   of   the   present   case,   it   is   not   in

dispute that the accused and the complainant are closely related to each

other.   In   fact,   petitioner   No.   1   Ran   Vijay   Singh   is   the   nephew   of   the

16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP

complainant, whereas petitioner No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 1. It is


also not in dispute that the complainant came back to India in January

2017 after more than five years. A General Power of Attorney having been

executed   in   favour   of   petitioner   No.   1   by   the   complainant   dated

12.08.2011 is also not in dispute. By way of a General Power of Attorney

(Annexure   P­1   with   the   petition),   the   complainant   had   authorized   the

petitioner No. 1 to look after and manage the share of the complainant in

the immovable property so mentioned in the General Power of Attorney,

which was jointly owned and possessed both by the complainant as well

as by petitioner No. 1. Acts which had been permitted by the complainant

to be performed by accused No. 1 as his Attorney are as under:

“1.  To   look   after   and   manage   our   share   in   the
immovable property mentioned above. 

2.  To deal with any of our court cases and to file any
court   case   or   appeal   on   our   behalf   in   any   competent

Court   and   execute   any   document   required   in   this
connection, to engage or appoint any lawyer or advocate

or legal practitioner in this case.

3.  To apply for any loan from any bank/deptt. and
mortgage   our   share   in   the   property   for   the   purpose   of
loan mentioned above and to make statement, produce
evidence oral and documentary.

4.  To enter into  any correspondence/deed  with any
respective   authority   as   deemed   necessary   in   this

16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP


18. It   is   also   a   matter   of   record   that   certain   FIRs   have   been


lodged by the petitioner also against the private respondents. 

19. Having   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and   having

perused the contents of the documents appended with the petition, it is

evident and apparent that the bone of contention between the parties is

ancestral property. As far as first FIR (FIR No. 32/2017) is concerned, the

allegations contained in the same are to the effect that the accused has

committed theft of two Motorcycles, one air conditioner and a stabilizer,

value of which, as per the complainant is about two lakhs. In the second

FIR (FIR No. 69/2017), the allegation is that forgery has been committed

by the accused therein in having an electricity meter, which was alloted

by   the   Himachal   Pradesh   State   Electricity   Board   in   favour   of   the

complainant by having the same fraudulently transferred on the basis of

forged documents in the name of the accused. The alleged theft, which

was committed by the accused as per the first FIR, was committed even

as   per   the   complainant   in   December   2012.   The   allegation   is   based

against   the   accused   on   the   basis   of   information   so   provided   to   the

complainant  by   persons  named  in the  FIR,  who allegedly  saw  accused

committing   the   theft   in   December,   2012.   Allegation   with   regard   to

electricity   meter   is   that   documents   were   forged   for   having   the   same

transferred   in   the   name   of   the   accused.   It   is   apparent   from   the   other

16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP

documents   appended   alongwith   the   petition   by   the   present   petitioners


that he has taken up the matter with the authorities concerned that the

FIRs in issue have been falsely registered as the intent of the complainant

therein is to grab the property in issue, which is the ancestral property.

Now,   though   it   is   mentioned   in   the   FIR   by   the   complainant   that   the

property,   electricity   meter   installed   wherein   was   got     fraudulently

transferred by the accused in his name was owned and possessed by the

complainant, but  documents demonstrate that the property  in issue  is

joint property. Besides this, complainant had executed a General Power

of Attorney in favour of petitioner No. 1 authorizing him to look after the

said property  also on behalf of the complainant. As already mentioned

hereinabove, the first FIR pertains to the alleged acts, which took place in

December 2012. The explanation which has been given in the FIR itself

as to why the factum of the alleged offence being committed by petitioner

No. 1 could not be brought to the notice of the complainant by the alleged

eye   witnesses,   does   not   inspires   confidence.   On   the   other   hand,   it

appears to be a version which has been concocted to justify that as far as

the complainant is concerned, on his behalf there is no delay in lodging

complaint/FIR. Records of the case, which stand perused, demonstrate

that as far as the other FIR is concerned, i.e., FIR No. 69/2017, dated

03.06.2017,  post   investigation,   the   police   has   prepared   a   cancellation


16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP


20. Be that as it may, in my considered view, lodging of both the


said   FIRs   is   nothing   but   an   abuse   of   the   process   of   Court   and   if   the

allegations made in the FIRs are taken at their face value also, they prima

facie  do not constitute any offence nor do they make out a case against

the accused in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Lodging

of the FIRs appears to be a motivated act on account of the dispute which

is   between   the   complainant   and   petitioner   No.   1   pertaining   to   the

ancestral   property.   Unlike   the   contentions   so   made   on   behalf   of   the

complainant, record demonstrates that the property which is the bone of

contention   between   the   complainant   and   petitioner   No.   1,   is   ancestral

property and not  a property which can be termed to be exclusively owned

and possessed by the complainant. This Court is not oblivious to the fact

that   the   scope   of   inherent   jurisdiction   so   vested   in   this   Court   under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code is narrow, yet this

Court  has  to perform  its duty  even  by  invoking  the inherent   power  so

vested in it when in the opinion of the Court, the same is necessary to

prevent the abuse of the process of Court and also to secure the ends of

justice.   In   the   peculiar   facts   and   circumstances   of   this   case,   in   my

considered   view,   it   is   a   fit   case   where   this   Court   has   to   exercise   its

inherent jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of process of Court and secure

the ends of justice.

16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP


21. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 32/2017 dated


06.03.2017 under Sections 379 and 34 IPC and FIR No. 69/2017 dated

03.06.2017 under Sections 420,468,470,471 and 120B IPC, registered at

Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P.,  are quashed and set aside. 

Petition   stands   disposed   of,   so   also   miscellaneous

applications, if any. 

     (Ajay Mohan Goel)
July 12, 2018

16/07/2018 23:01:25 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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