Rajasthan High Court

Allanoor S/O Shri Ibraheem B/C ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 September, 2022

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8185/2018

Allanoor S/o Shri Ibraheem, R/o H.n. 4-G-8, Sanjay Nagar Gali
No.6, Near Vigyan Nagar Police Station Tahsil Ladpura, District
Kota, Raj.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
2.     Matadeen Jangid S/o Shri Ghanshyam Jangid, R/o C.s.d.
       Coloni Lakheri Road Ara Machene Wale Kapren District
       Bundi, Raj.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Yadav, GA-cum-AAG For Complainant(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 02/09/2022 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 07/09/2022

Petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. No.278/2018

registered at Police Station Anantpura, Kota City for the offences

under Sections 420, 467, 468, 383, 386, 504 and 406 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Complainant-

respondent No.2 has lodged the present FIR with ulterior motive.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

Complainant-respondent No.2 had taken Rs.4 lacs for domestic

need from the petitioner and gave two cheques bearing

No.184251 dated 30.09.2015 amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and

bearing No.184246 dated 30.09.2015 amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.

(2 of 6) [CRLMP-8185/2018]

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said

cheques were dishonoured on account of "insufficient fund" and

petitioner had given a notice to the complainant-respondent No.2.

After that, petitioner had filed a complaint against the

complainant-respondent No.2 under Section 138 of N. I. Act in the

Competent Court in the year 2016. After that, complainant-

respondent No.2 had filed the present FIR against the petitioner

on 01.06.2018 regarding same cheques. So, the present FIR be

quashed.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for

the complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by

learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after

investigation, Investigating Officer has proved the offence(s)

under Sections 386 and 504 IPC against the petitioner. They

further submitted that the petitioner can take all the averments at

the time of charge. So, petition filed by the petitioner be

dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent as

well as learned Public Prosecutor.

The Hon'ble Apex court has dealt with the proposition

of law pertaining to quashing of FIR/complaint/all criminal

proceedings initiated against an accused by High Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. in catena of judgments. Particularly, in the

case of Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in

AIR 2013 SC 2753, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as

under:

(3 of 6) [CRLMP-8185/2018]

23. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal- proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.

In the landmark decision of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs.

Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], the Apex court

(4 of 6) [CRLMP-8185/2018]

has discussed the scope of powers of High Court to quash

FIR/complaint/all criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in

detail and has determined such instances where FIR/complaint/all

criminal proceedings can be quashed. The relevant part of the

above-mentioned judgment reads as under:

105. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under 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 formula 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.

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

(5 of 6) [CRLMP-8185/2018]

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.

In the present case, as per contention of the petitioner,

present FIR was lodged against the petitioner after filing of the

complaint by the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. A bare reading of the FIR shows that the present

FIR is not bona fide. Complainant-respondent No.2 has lodged the

FIR to harass and humiliate the petitioner. So, allowing the

proceedings in the present FIR would be abuse of processing of

law.

In view of over all discussions and observations made herein

above and guided by the principles laid down in Prashant Bharti

Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (supra) and State of Haryana and Ors.

Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (supra), I am of this firm view that