The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR for rape. The Court held that since the investigation was ongoing and no compelling circumstances existed to show no offence was made out, the proceedings could not be stalled.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 296 of 2016
---- Petitioner
| Versus |
|---|
---- Respondents
| For Petitioner : | Shri C.K. Kesharwani, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For Respondent No.1/State : | Shri Anupam Dubey, Dy. Govt. Advocate |
| For Respondent No. 2 : | Shri Malay Bhaduri, Advocate |
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board By
07/07/2016
from the complaint made on 30/11/2015. The present petitioner is said to have ravished the respondent No. 2 for the first time in the year 2014 and report of which is being made for the first time on 30/11/2015. According to the petitioner this inordinate unexplained delay on the part of respondent No.2 in lodging the report shows that there is a great element of doubt on the complaint made by the prosecution. He further submits that the present petitioner has also given details to the police authorities in respect of the fact that the respondent No. 2 and certain other members have been constantly calling up the petitioner demanding money or else they would falsely implicate the petitioner and documents attached as also the calls made and present petition has also been provided to the police authorities. It was also contended that the present petitioner has also submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, District Durg, who in turn is investigating upon the complaint against the respondent No.2, under these circumstances the counsel for the petitioner submits that for the present the criminal proceedings initiated against the present petitioner at the behest of the respondent No.2 may be kept in abeyance.
granted as it is to premature a stage.
“30. It is a settled legal proposition that while considering the case for quashing of the criminal proceedings the court should not “kill a stillborn 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 is 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.”
Vs. P.K. Pounraj and another, (2014) 10 SCC 616 para 13 relying upon the landmark judgment of case of Bhajan Lal is held as under in para 13 :-
“13. 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. [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335]. 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 addition 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.”
Sd/-
(P.Sam Koshy) Judge
K
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 376 IPC should be quashed at the investigation stage where allegations require detailed inquiry.
Whether the petitioner established compelling circumstances to absolve him from criminal liability despite FIR registration.
Whether the High Court can intervene to stall police investigation into a cognizable offence of rape.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohiyuddin Sharif @ Monu
State of Chhattisgarh
Neelam Yadav
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
