Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lokesh Parashar vs State Of Haryana on 17 March, 2022
CRM-M No.6315 of 2022 ...1...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.6315 of 2022
Date of Decision: 17-03-2022.
Lokesh Parashar
...Petitioner
Versus
Sate of Haryana
...Respondent
(Heard through Video-Conferencing)
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present: Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
The petitioner, above-named, has preferred the instant petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to seek the quashing of the FIR bearing No.385
dated 05.07.2019 registered at Police Station Central Faridabad, District
Faridabad, under Sections 323 & 506 IPC and Section 68 of the Excise Act.
Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the allegations, as
levelled in the subject FIR, are that while complainant-informant SI Vijay
and Constable Surjit were present in the afore-said Police Station to
discharge their official duty, the petitioner came there in an inebriated
condition. He was given the pen and paper to pen-down his complaint but
he, instead of doing so, abused and also threatened to kill them.
Mr. Apoorv Garg, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana,
has joined the proceedings in this case in pursuance of the copy of the present
petition having been sent to the respondent-State in advance. He has
1 of 6
CRM-M No.6315 of 2022 ...2...
forwarded the copies of the zimni orders passed by the trial Court during the
period from 04.11.2019 to 23.12.2021, through "WhatsApp Group for Video-
Conferencing" and the same have been placed on the file.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
State counsel in this petition at the preliminary stage and have also perused
the file thoroughly.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that from the
allegations as levelled in the FIR, none of the offences, as invoked in the
case, is made out against the petitioner and thus, he (petitioner) has been
falsely implicated in this case and though, he moved the complaint Annexure
P-3 (colly) to the Commissioner of Police concerned in this regard but the
same has wrongly been filed and moreover, the petitioner could not be
arrested for the alleged commission of the offence under Section 68 of the
Excise Act in view of the provisions as contained in Section 47 of this Act
and in these circumstances, the said FIR is liable to be quashed. To buttress
his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the observations as made by the
Single Bench of this Court in Surinder Suri vs. State of Haryana & Others
1996(2) RCR (Criminal) 701,
Per-contra, learned State counsel has argued that the
Challan/Police Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C has already been
presented against the petitioner but he has repeatedly been seeking
adjournments in the trial Court for addressing the arguments on the point of
framing of the charges and moreover, he (petitioner) went to the police
station and threatened the complainant SI and the other police official present
there and he also refused to give the requisite sample at the time of his
2 of 6
CRM-M No.6315 of 2022 ...3...
medical examination for the purpose of ascertaining the factum of the
consumption of liquor by him as well as to append his signatures on the
relevant papers in respect thereof and these circumstances reflect his conduct
and keeping in view the same, this petition be dismissed.
Before adverting to the discussion on the merits of the present
matter, it is worth-while to mention here that Section 482 Cr.P.C confers
inherent power on this Court to pass appropriate orders as may be necessary
to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well
settled that this power is to be exercised cautiously and sparingly only in the
eventuality of the fulfilment of any of the afore-discussed pre-requisites as
envisaged under the above-referred provisions. Such power, being
extraordinary in nature, is to be invoked in the rare circumstances genuinely
warranting the exercise thereof to serve the purposes as specifically provided
in the said provisions.
Concededly, the petitioner had gone to the Police Station on the
day of the alleged occurrence. He has specifically been alleged to have
abused the complainant-SI and the afore-named Constable present there and
to have threatened to kill them. A perusal of the copy of the application
(annexed at Page 45 in the paper-book), moved by the police to the Medical
Officer, BKH, Faridabad for conducting the medical examination of the
petitioner for giving the opinion qua his (petitioner's) being under the
influence of liquor, reveals that he (petitioner) refused to give the requisite
sample for the said purpose and also to sign the said document. His above-
alleged act and conduct speak volumes of his intent which attract culpability.
3 of 6
CRM-M No.6315 of 2022 ...4...
The police force has been inducted in the system to maintain the
law and order and to bring the culprits to the book and in case, a person goes
to the Police Station in an inebriated condition and dares to threaten the
police officials present there for discharging their official duty, to kill them
and if such a person claims and is allowed to go scot free, then it is high time
to realise that the entire system is at the threshold of anarchy and we are wide
opening the gates for the same.
The offence under Section 506 IPC has been made cognizable
and non-bailable in the State of Haryana vide the requisite notification issued
in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10 (1) & (2) of the
Criminal Law Amending Act, 1932 and its validity and legality have been
upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide the judgment rendered in
CRM-M No.26407 of 2012 titled as Anuj & Another vs. State of Haryana
& Another. The observations, as made by this Court (SB) in Surinder Suri
(supra), are of no avail to the petitioner as the facts and circumstances of the
afore-cited case are distinguishable from those of the present one. In the
above-said case, the parties were already having strained relations and were
litigating and therefore, it was observed that the Court, while considering the
quashing of the FIR, had to see the mala-fides of the complainant and if the
dominant purpose in filing the FIR is mala-fide, the same would have to be
quashed and in this backdrop, it was held that the accused were not armed
and therefore, it could not be said that the complainant felt intimidated
whereas in the case in hand, there is nothing on the record to show that the
complainant-informant and the petitioner were having strained relations since
prior to the alleged occurrence and any litigation was pending between them.
4 of 6
CRM-M No.6315 of 2022 ...5...
Moreover, it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Megh Singh vs.
State of Punjab 2003(4) RCR (Criminal) 319 that "circumstantial flexibility,
one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between
conclusions in two cases or between two accused in the same case. Each case
depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is
not enough because a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. It is
more pronounced in criminal cases where the backbone of adjudication is fact
based."
The contention qua the police having no power to arrest any person
accused of committing the offence under Section 68 of the Excise Act, also does
not come to the rescue of the petitioner in view of the fact that besides the said
offence, the offence under Section 506 IPC is also alleged to have been
committed by him and as discussed earlier, this offence has been notified to be
cognizable and non-bailable in the State of Haryana and the legality of said
notification has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Anuj and
Another (supra).
So far as the factum of complaint Annexure P-3 having been
moved by the petitioner to the Police Commissioner against the police officials
is concerned, a bare reading of this document shows that the same had been
filed while observing that the allegations, as levelled by the complainant, i.e the
petitioner, therein, were false and baseless. Even otherwise, mere factum of
filing of the said complaint does not suffice at all to fulfil any of the above-
discussed pre-requisites, so as to call for exercising the inherent power as
contained in Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Before parting with the judgment, this Court cannot resist from
5 of 6
CRM-M No.6315 of 2022 ...6...
pointing out that from the perusal of the copies of the zimni orders passed by the
trial Court during the period from 04.11.2019 to 23.12.2021, it becomes quite
explicit that the petitioner and his counsel have been seeking adjournments to
address the arguments on the point of framing of the charge in the case without
advancing any cogent and plausible reason/justification for the same. This
conduct on the part of the petitioner, rather, reflects his own intent to thwart the
process of law as well as of the Court.
As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the present
petition is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Resultantly, the same
stands dismissed accordingly.
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
JUDGE
17th March, 2022.
seema
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether Reportable? Yes
6 of 6
