Dismissed

Abdul Rauf Son of Shri Rashid v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Mar 2024CRLMP/1055/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for quashing of FIR for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC dismissed. Court held that the impugned FIR involved interpolation of documents and distinct facts from a previous FIR, thus not falling within the rarest of rare cases for quashing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Abdul Rauf Son of Shri Rashid Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:13838]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1055/2021

¶4

Abdul Rauf Son Of Shri Rashid, Resident Of House No. 25/69, Teli Kumhar Mohalla, Nasirabad, District Ajmer.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Peush Nag For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashwant Kankhadia, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶11

Order

¶12

19/03/2024

¶13

Instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner-accused, for quashing of FIR No.368/2017 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Ajmer for offences u/s. 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC.

¶14

It has been contended by counsel for petitioner that the petitioner works as Agent at RTO Office and was arrested in connection with one FIR No.220/2017 lodged by one Prem Singh against one another person namely Ramjan @ Kalu @ Imran @ Firoz, stating that he has been cheated by him, in respect of booking of two transport vehicles. During course of investigation of that FIR, accused Ramjan named the petitioner and the Police arrested the petitioner. The material from the computer of petitioner was recovered and copied on a DVD and that DVD was sent to RTO Office at Ajmer for verification of scanned documents from the computer of petitioner.

[2024:RJ-JP:13838]

[CRLMP-1055/2021]

(2 of 4)

It has been contended that documents allegedly scanned in the DVD, pertaining to registration, permit, licenses, fitness and insurance etc. were not verified from the record of RTO and it was noticed that there is interpolation in the documents, hence RTO, Ajmer, lodged another FIR No.368/2017 against the petitioner, impugned herein.

¶19

Counsel for petitioner contended that in respect of allegations leveled against the petitioner in the impugned FIR, inquiry has already been made against the petitioner in the previous FIR No.220/2017, wherein petitioner has been arrested and released on bail. Hence, for the similar nature of allegations, petitioner cannot be booked in the impugned FIR.

¶20

Counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner has already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail, however, the Police, after investigation in the impugned FIR, is inclined to submit charge-sheet, whereas the FIR itself is liable to be quashed being in misuse of process of law.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and placed on record the progress report of investigation dated 31.01.2024, pointing out that after investigation, prima facie case for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 IPC against the petitioner, have been found proved and charge-sheet is likely to be submitted in the Court.

¶22

This Court perused the allegations leveled in FIR No.220/2017 as well as in the impugned FIR No.368/2017. On the face value of contents of both FIRs, it cannot be held that both FIRs are based on similar set of facts. FIR No.220/2017 was

[2024:RJ-JP:13838]

[CRLMP-1055/2021]

(3 of 4)

lodged by one Prem Singh against Ramjhan in respect of cheating to book two vehicles for transpiration, whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged by the Regional Transport Officer, Ajmer, against the petitioner, in respect of interpolation in the documents of registration, permit, licenses etc. which were not verified from the record of RTO Office.

¶27

In such view of the matter, arguments raised by counsel for petitioner, do not hold water and the same is hereby rejected.

¶28

The parameters of governing the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC are well settled and have been reiterated in a consistent line of decisions of the Apex Court. In case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, [2021 SCC OnLine SC 315], the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in celebrated judgments delivered in cases of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866] and State of Haryana Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335] have been reiterated. The basic test is whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of cognizable offence or the FIR has been lodged by falsely implicating the petitioner, maliciously or for wrecking vengeance. 9. The contents of the FIR in question, do give rise to offence of cognizable nature, which are subject matter of investigation, more so when after investigation, allegations have been found proved against the petitioner.

¶29

It is settled proposition of law that powers of High Court to quash FIR or criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only in rarest of rare cases. Having

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:13838]

[CRLMP-1055/2021]

discussed the factual matrix of the present case, this case does not fall in the category of rarest. Hence, no case is make out to quash the impugned FIR by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC.

¶34