The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an FIR for offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. The court held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and none of the grounds laid down in Bhajan Lal were applicable.
Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR is 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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1539 / 2017
Naresh Gurjar S/o Shri Hari Ram Gurjar B/c Gurjar, R/o Village Jalalpura, Police Station Salempur, Distt. Dausa (Raj.).
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Kasana Public Prosecutor : Mr. Jitendra Shrimali
Investigating Officer : Mr. Atar Singh, SI, Police Station Balghat, District Karauli.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Order
05/05/2017
Petitioner- accused Naresh Gurjar preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing impugned FIR No. 251/2016 registered at Police Station Balghat, District Karauli for offences under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is implicated falsely in this case. He submitted representation before the Investigating Officer for fair and
(2 of 4)
[CRLMP-1539/2017]
impartial investigation along with photographs, CD and mobile call details from the aforesaid documents i.e. photographs, CD and mobile call details, no offence is made out against the present petitioner, therefore, the impugned FIR may be quashed.
Investigating Officer Mr. Atar Singh, SI, Police Station Balghat, District Karauli is present in person who submitted factual report of the matter through learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Jitendra Shrimali which is taken on record.
On instructions of Investigating Officer learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Jitendra Shrimali submits that offence under Sections 376 and 366 IPC is made out against the present petitioner and the representation submitted by present petitioner has already been considered. He submits that from the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.c. and after considering the material collected during investigation and representation submitted by petitioner, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the present petitioner.
Heard.
In the matter of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch.
Bhajan Lal & Ors. [ 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335 ], the Hon'ble Supreme court have framed seven grounds on the basis of which FIR can be quashed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para No.105, observed as under:-
“ 105. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under
(3 of 4)
[CRLMP-1539/2017]
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary 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 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 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.
(4 of 4)
[CRLMP-1539/2017]
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. ”
Here, in the case in hand, from the perusal of FIR and material collected during investigation which is incorporated in the factual report submitted by Investigating Officer, none of the aforesaid ground is available for quashing impugned FIR, therefore, there is no merit in this misc. petition, same is dismissed.
(BANWARI LAL SHARMA)J.
S. Kumawat/82
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned FIR should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the grounds provided in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose an offence under Sections 366 and 376 IPC.
Whether any of the seven grounds for quashing FIR enunciated in Bhajan Lal are made out in this case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.Referred¶24
[1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335] · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Naresh Gurjar
State of Rajasthan
Superintendent of Police, Karauli
Station House Officer, Police Station Balghat
Smt. Sunita
Banwari Lal Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
