The court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an FIR. Citing State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, the court held that specific allegations against the petitioner justified proceeding and quashing was not expedient.
The petition for quashing the FIR was dismissed.
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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-1109 of 2010 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-1109 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 18, 2010
R.P. Mishra
........Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another .......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Y.D. Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana.
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of the FIR No.210 dated 17.6.2009, under Sections 384,511,294,341,452 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), Police Station Saran, DistrictFaridabad.
The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-1) read as under :-
No.5 Sanjay enclave Part-I, NIT Faridabad and a Domestic woman.
Crl. Misc. No. M-1109 of 2010 (O&M)
2
subscription forcefully from the residents of the streets.
3
Crl. Misc. No. M-1109 of 2010 (O&M)
13.5.2009. (copy is attached herewith). No action was taken on the complaint, hence, the present criminal complaint is being filed before this Hon'ble Court.
accused has committed the offence u/s 384,511,294,341,452,506 IPC.
So, it is prayed that the present criminal complaint be sent to SHO Saran u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and further instructions to registered case against the accused and legal action be initiated or the accused be summoned accordingly and be awarded strict punishment. The evidence be produced.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR in question was a counter blast to the civil suit filed by the petitioner, wherein respondent No.2 was also one of the defendants.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner was a self stayed President of the Mandir and had been forcibly collecting subscription/donation.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.
In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp
(1) Supreme Court Cases 335 , the Apex Court has held as under:-
“The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article
Crl. Misc. No. M-1109 of 2010 (O&M)
4
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court 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 chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-
Crl. Misc. No. M-1109 of 2010 (O&M)
5
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
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
Crl. Misc. No. M-1109 of 2010 (O&M)
6
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.”
A perusal of the FIR reveals that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner. After investigation challan has been presented against the petitioner and now the case is fixed for framing of the charge.
Keeping in view the fact that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner, it would not be just and expedient to quash the FIR at this stage.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
Anand
August 18, 2010
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the court should interfere in a case where specific allegations levelled against the petitioner indicate a prima facie case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶34
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R.P. Mishra
State of Haryana
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
