For Petitioner : Md. Waquar Rizvi, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following prayer:
"I. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow
the instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by the petitioner.
II. To Kindly quash the F.I.R. bearing crime No. 27/2020
dated 17.01.2020 for offences under section
406,420,467,468,471 r/w 120 B of Indian Penal Code,
1860 registered at Police Station Dhamtari, District
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh so far as the petitioner is
concerned.
III. To Kindly quash impugned Entire charge sheet
bearing no. 175/2024 dated 31.05.2024 filed against the
petitioner under section 406,420,467,468,471 r/w 120 B
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in F.I.R. bearing crime No.
27/2020 (Annexure P/1).
IV. To Kindly quash Impugned order dated 03.06.2024
(Annexure P/2) (Wrongly mentioned as 03.06.2023 in
impugned order). whereby the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dhamtari (C.G.) has taken cognizance of the
impugned charge-sheet and registered the impugned
criminal proceedings as Criminal case no. 924/2024
against the petitioner for the offences under section
+420,467,468,471,468,471, 120 B IPC.
V. And to kindly grant any other relief to the petitioner as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and
circumstances of the case, may also be granted to
petitioner."
2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner and respondent
No.2 are real brothers. They started a business of cold storage
in the name and style of M/s. Ayasha Cold Storage. They
executed a deed of partnership on 19.7.2012. An FIR was
lodged by respondent No.2 against the petitioner on 17.1.2020
making the allegation that the petitioner tampered with the
signatures of the complainant and declared him a retired partner.
The petitioner also produced a forged partnership deed before
the Registrar, Firms and Societies, Durg. On such a complaint,
the police registered the offence as stated-above against the
petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that if allegations
made in FIR are taken at their face value, no offence is made out
against the petitioner. He would further submit that on account of
malice, the complainant lodged a false FIR against the petitioner.
He would also submit that there is a dispute pertaining to the
ancestral property between the two brothers. He would further
contend that the relinquishment deed was executed by
respondent No.2 himself but subsequently, he denied its
execution and lodged an FIR. He would pray to quash the FIR.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose
the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would
submit that the forged documents/deeds produced by the
petitioner were examined by the handwriting expert and
according to its report, the signatures were found forged and
fabricated. He would further submit that though there is a dispute
between the brothers but there is a prima facie case against the
petitioner. He would contend that the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on the record.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner by virtue of a deed got declared
respondent No.2 as a retired partner and thereafter, submitted a
new partnership deed before the Registrar, Firms and Societies,
Durg. Respondent No.2 went to United Bank of India, Dhamtari
Branch to obtain bank statements for the years 2019-20, where
he was informed that he is no more a partner of the firm. He
enquired into the matter and thereafter, lodged an FIR. A form 'V'
under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 was
submitted by the petitioner, wherein forged signatures were put.
After the registration of the FIR, the document was sent to the
State handwriting expert. The expert found a difference between
both sets of signatures.
7. In the well-celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605
State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Apex
Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly
and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The guidelines are as
follows:-
"(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 to 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
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 156(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 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.
(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 every
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."
8. In the case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill; (1995) SCC (Cri)
1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi; (1999) 3 SCC 259
and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd.
& Ors; 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex Court clearly held that if a
prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the
offence, the Court should not quash the complaint. However, it
was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as
alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, the
Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of
caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the
Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus,
there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a
prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in
consequence thereof cannot be quashed.
9. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex
Court has observed that the power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare
cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability,
genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the
F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very
wide, but the conferment of wide power requires the Court to be
cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court
has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court,
when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to
consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to
consider the case on merit.
10. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540,
it has been held that probabilities of the prosecution version
cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of
mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance. The
relevant passage reads thus: (SCCp. 550, para 11)
"11......It would not be proper for the High Court to
analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all
probabilities in order to determine whether a
conviction would be sustainable and on such
premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings
are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess
the material before it and conclude that the complaint
cannot be proceeded with."
11. In the present case, the charge-sheet has been filed against the
petitioner. The report of the handwriting expert, which is a part of
the charge-sheet is against the petitioner. We cannot analyze the
veracity of the report of the handwriting expert or other collected
evidence at this stage.
12. Taking into consideration the law-laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the facts of the present case, in the opinion
of this Court no case is made out for interference thus the
petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
13. The CRMP is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Nimmi
