Smt. Lalita Bai Dhargawe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 827 of 2019

¶5

Smt. Lalita Bai Dhargawe W/o Shri Triratn Dhargawe, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ward No.3, Bus Stand, Ambagarh Chowki, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, Civil and Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Ku. Sangmitra Dhargawe D/o Shri B L Dhargawe, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Bus Stand, Ambagarh Chowki, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Azad Siddique, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶17

23.07.2024

¶18

1. Heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Azad Siddique, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶19

2

¶20

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”) with the following prayer:-

¶21

“The petitioner therefore most humbly and respectfully prays that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the FIR in Crime No.0022/2019 registered in Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 of IPC and subsequent proceeding, in the interest of justice.”

¶22

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the complainant made a written complaint to the concerned police stating therein that her sister-in-law ( Bhabhi) , belonging to Sindhi Samaj had performed love marriage with her brother, for which, complainant was not happy with their, and as such, she was making a false allegation against her frequently. The brother of complainant namely, Satyapal Dhargawe had suffered a train accident, due to which, his right leg was amputated from his body and he was living with another brother namely, Triratnpal Dhargawe. Triratnpal and his wife (accused) was taking care of her brother. As day to day disputes arose, the complainant was living separately in the first floor of the house, whereas the accused was living with her husband in the ground floor of house. The complainant and accused both are

¶23

3

¶24

relatives and both were making allegation against each other. The complainant earlier made certain complaints against the accused, in which, the police had investigated, but no offence was made out and as such, police filed the closure report. Even in one case which was lodged on 20.07.2016, no cognizable offence has been found by the police. The complainant, thereafter, has a complaint before Police Station Ambagarh Chowki for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC bearing FIR No.0022 of 2019.

¶25

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the material available on record clearly shows that the false and frivolous complaint has been lodged in the bailable offences against the petitioner at the instance of complainant, who is the sister-in- law of the accused, based upon which, FIR has been registered. It has been contended that earlier in number of time, complainant made several complaints against the petitioner, which was enquired by the police authority and found that false allegations have been levelled and hence, no action has been taken. It has been further contended that petitioner is the real sister-in-law of the complainant, who belonged to Sindhi Samaj and performed love marriage with brother of the complainant, which she does not like and hence, she has levelled false allegation against the petitioner. It has been argued that it is very unfortunate that due to family dispute, complainant has made false allegations against the petitioner and lodged several complaints against her. It has been further argued that where

¶26

4

¶27

allegation made in the FIR is so absurd and inherently, improbable on the basis of which a prudent person can reach to just conclusion, there is no any sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and FIR bearing Crime No.0022 of 2019 registered at Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, Dsitrict Rajnandgaon (C.G.) against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC deserves to be quashed.

¶28

5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State, would submit that according to the settled legal position of law with regard to jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, all that can be examined is whether the allegations made in the FIR are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety would prima facie constitute an offence for making out a case against the accused. In the instant case, contents of the FIR shows that there exists prima facie ingredients of the commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner and the veracity of the allegations levelled in the FIR could only be tested through a trial. He further submits that the FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner with specific allegations that the petitioner abused her as also had beaten her by means of hands and fists, due to which, respondent No.2 suffered injuries at her back and waist and thereby she has lodged FIR narrating that the petitioner had threatened her to kill. It has been contended that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section

¶29

5

¶30

482 of the CrPC is extremely limited as FIR cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient evidence available on record to put the accused person to trial, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶31

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, would submit that the petitioner abused respondent No.2 as also had beaten her by means of hands and fists, due to which, she suffered injuries at her back and waist and thereby she has lodged FIR narrating that the petitioner had threatened her to kill. He would further submit that all submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner relates to question of fact, that can be considered during the course of trial and that cannot be considered at this stage and that too in proceeding under Section 482 CrPC as all ingredients of the aforesaid offences are available to put the petitioners to trial, as such, it is the case where the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶32

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶33

8. At the outset, it would be appropriate to consider the scope of interference in FIR lodged by the police against accused in extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

¶34

9. In the matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others1 , the Supreme Court has held that the

¶35

1 (1998) 5 SCC 749

¶36

6

¶37

accused can approach the High Court either under Section 482 of the CrPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him.

¶38

10. The Supreme Court in the mater of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others2 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: -

¶39

“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.

¶40

2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

¶41

7

¶42

(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.

¶43

(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.

¶44

(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.

¶45

(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.

¶46

(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.

¶47

(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.

¶48

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

¶49

8

¶50

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.

¶51

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

¶52

11. The principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) has been followed recently by the Supreme Court in the matters of Google India Private Limited v. Visaka Industries3, Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another4 and Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and others5. The Supreme Court in Google India Private Limited (supra), explained the scope of dictum of Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and “that too in the rarest of rare cases” as indicated in paragraph 103 therein of the report.

¶53

12. Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court in the petition relating to quashment of FIR, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that in the impugned FIR bearing Crime

¶54

3 (2020) 4 SCC 162

¶55

4 (2020) 13 SCC 435

¶56

5 (2019) 18 SCC 191

¶57

9

¶58

No.0022 of 2019 has been lodged against the petitioner under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC.

¶59

13. Having noticed the legal position qua quashing the FIR, the question would be whether taking the contents of the FIR as it is, offence under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner or not ?

¶60

14. It is the case of the prosecution that brother of respondent No.2 was performed love marriage with the petitioner, who belonged to Sindhi community, which respondent No.2 does not like and due to which, she made several complaints against the petitioner. In several complaints, after investigation, no offence has been made out against the petitioner. On 27.01.2019, respondent No.2 has lodged First Information Report at Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon alleging therein that petitioner has abused her as also had beaten her by means of hands and fists, due to which, she suffered injuries at her back and waist. She further mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner had threatened her to kill, on the basis of which, offence under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC has been registered against the petitioner.

¶61

15. In the complaint so made, the complainant has only made omnibus and general allegations against the petitioner without being full particulars about date and place that the petitioner has assaulted her as well as threatened her to kill.

¶62

10

¶63

16. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, material available on record, perusing the FIR, in which, no specific allegations have been made and only bald and omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie, no offence under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC is made out for prosecuting the petitioner- Smt. Lalita Bai Dhargawe for the above-stated offences and the prosecution against her for the aforesaid offence is covered by the Category 1, 3 & 7 of para-102 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) and as such, liable to be quashed.

¶64

17. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated legal analysis, the petition under Section 482 of the CrPC is allowed and the FIR arising out of Crime No.0022 of 2019 registered at Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC is hereby quashed.

¶65

Sd/- Sd/--

¶66

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶67

Yogesh

Smt. Lalita Bai Dhargawe v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lalita Bai Dhargawe v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girdhari Bhausare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ghanshyam Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arjun Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmendra Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepanker Goshwami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sudhir Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh