Sohan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 3781 Raj

[2023/RJJD/012261]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 885/2023

Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Kishan Lal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o W.No. 7, Tandurwali, P.s. Tibbi, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Abhishek Baghla S/o Sh. Om Prakash Baghla, Aged About 22 Years, R/o W.No. 17, Sangria, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Himmat Jagga
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                   Judgment

RESERVED ON 26/04/2023
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/05/2023

Instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the

petitioner for quashing of FIR No.250/2022 dated 20.04.2022

registered at Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh for

offence under Sections 406, 420 IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of Chit

Fund Act, 1982.

Facts in brief are that the on 22.11.2021, respondent No.2/

complainant filed a complaint before the ACJM, Sangria, District

Hanumangarh against the present petitioner, accused Nindi Soni

and Rajpal, inter alia alleging therein that he was working in Aurik

Motors, Sangria. In the month of May, 2021, accused Nindi Soni

came to the complainant and told him to invest in Kinko Marketing

Pvt. Ltd. Company, which is a chit fund company. At that time,

[2023/RJJD/012261] (2 of 10) [CRLMP-885/2023]

accused Nindi Soni was also working in the said company. The

accused Nindi Soni also narrated the complainant about the

investment plans. It has been alleged that relying upon Nindi Soni,

the complainant transferred Rs.25,000/- to Nindi Soni through

Googal Pay for the purpose of investment in the said chit fund

company. Two more persons namely Pankaj and Punit also

transferred money to accused Nindi Soni. It has been further

alleged that the present petitioner Sohanlal and accused Rajpal

are the Managing Directors of the said chit fund company. After

investment in the said chit fund, only Rs.2,550/- was transferred

twice in the bank account of the complainant and thereafter

nothing was paid to the complainant. Upon which, the complainant

along with other persons went at the office of the said company

but the same was found locked and the accused persons also did

not reply to the calls of the complainant. It has been alleged in the

complainant that the accused persons committed fraud with the

complainant and other persons and peculated their money and

after closing down the company, fled away. The accused persons

also transferred their properties in the name of their wife.

The said complaint was sent to the Police Station Sangaria

for investigation. Upon which the present FIR was registered

against the petitioner and other accused persons for the aforesaid

offences and Police started investigation.

Being aggrieved by the impugned FIR, the petitioners filed

the present misc. petition for quashing of the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of

the impugned FIR, it would reveal that no offence as alleged is

made out against the petitioner and a complete false and frivolous

[2023/RJJD/012261] (3 of 10) [CRLMP-885/2023]

FIR has been lodged by the complainant. Counsel further submits

that as many as 12 FIR have already been registered against the

petitioner in respect of the alleged fraud committed by him,

therefore, all the FIR should have been clubbed and investigation

should be done by a single Investigating Officer and not by

different investigating Officer in each FIRs. Further, the present

FIR is nothing but a second FIR, which has been registered on the

basis of the material collected during investigation in other FIRs.

Counsel submits that a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the

basis of the same or connected cognizable offence would

constitute an "abuse of the statutory power of investigation".

Therefore, it is submitted, that the impugned FIR being a second

FIR, which is false and frivolous, may be quashed qua the

petitioner. To buttress his contentions, counsel has relied upon the

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of T.T.

Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. [(2001) 6 SCC 181];

Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. Union of India & Ors. [AIR 2020

SC 2386]; Anju Choudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. [2013

Crl. L.J. 776] as well as judgment of Punjab & Haryana High

Court in the case of Vijay Vs. UT of Chandigarh & Ors.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that it is well settled legal position that inherent powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only in exceptional

cases when the Court finds that from the allegation made in the

FIR/complaint even prima facie no offence is made out against the

accused but in the present case from the evidence collected during

investigation, it cannot be said that no case is made out against

[2023/RJJD/012261] (4 of 10) [CRLMP-885/2023]

the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. Further, the petitioner

along with other accused persons has cheated huge number of

persons including the complainant in the name of chit fund

company and as many as 12 FIR in respect of chit fund fraud have

already been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner has

peculated the hard earned money of the innocent people and fled

away. Therefore, at the initial stage, it would not be proper to

quash the FIR.

I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone

through the FIR and material available on record.

A bare perusal of the impugned FIR, it is apparent that the

petitioner along with other accused persons opened a fake chit

fund company and they enticed the people to invest in the said

company in the name of good return. Believing upon them, the

innocent people including the complainant invested their hard

earned money in the said chit fund company. But the petitioner

after some time closed the said company and fled away with

money and further they also transferred the properties in the

name of their wife. In the FIR, specific averments have been made

against the present petitioner and other accused persons.

Therefore, at the initial stage of investigation, no case for

quashing of FIR is made out in this case.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana &

Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal & Ors. : 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335],

laid down guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section

482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and criminal proceedings. The Court held:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter

[2023/RJJD/012261] (5 of 10) [CRLMP-885/2023]

XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary 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 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 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 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

[2023/RJJD/012261] (6 of 10) [CRLMP-885/2023]

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.

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."

Yet again, Supreme Court, in case of Janta Dal Vs. H.S.

Choudhary : (1992) 4 SCC 305], while relying on Choudhary

Bhajanlal's case (supra), held:

"This inherent power conferred by Section 482 of the Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a

[2023/RJJD/012261] (7 of 10) [CRLMP-885/2023]

premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to the cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. This Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., to which both of us were parties have dealt with this question at length and enunciated the law listing out the circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction in quashing proceedings. We do not, therefore, think it necessary in the present case to extensively deal with the import and intendment of the powers under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Code."

In another decision in the case of Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari

Devi & Ors, JT 2007 (11) 122, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that

while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482

Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot go beyond the allegations made in

the F.I.R or rely upon extraneous consideration. For the purpose of

finding out the commission of a cognizable offence, the High Court

is only required to look into the allegations made in the complaint

or the F.I.R.

In another case of N. Soundaram Vs. P.K. Pounraj & Anr. :

(2014) 10 SCC 616], Supreme Court, while reiterating the

principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) on scope of exercise of

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., held:

[2023/RJJD/012261] (8 of 10) [CRLMP-885/2023]

"It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice [See State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal]. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482, CrPC [See MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi]. An investigation should not be shut out atthe threshold if the allegations have some substance.[See Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora]."

In the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.Vs.

State of Maharashtra, 2021 CRILJ 2419, Hon'ble Apex Court, on

scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 ofCr.P.C., in Para 23

(xii) & (xv) observed as under :-

"xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the

[2023/RJJD/012261] (9 of 10) [CRLMP-885/2023]

investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or not. The Court is not required to consider on merits whether the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."

So far as the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the

petitioner in the case of TT Antony (supra) is concerned the

same is distinguished as the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the

second FIR should be quashed if it has been registered on the

same facts.

In another judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case

of Anju Choudhary (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a

second FIR in respect of the same offence/occurrence/incident is

not maintainable. Further, the judgment relied upon by the

petitioner in the case of Vijay (supra) is related to the offences

under Sections 379 & 411 and the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab

and Haryana quashed the FIR on the ground that both the FIR

registered against the accused were related to the same incident

and occurrence.

The judgment relied upon the by the petitioner in the case of

Arnab Ranjan Goswami (supra), is related to filing of multiple

FIRs and complaints in various States against media journalist. In

[2023/RJJD/012261] (10 of 10) [CRLMP-885/2023]

this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the FIRs holding

that to allow multiple and successive FIRs in multiple States

bearing same foundation has stifling effect on exercise of his

freedom and will effectively destroy freedom of citizen to know the

affairs of governance.

The petitioner has placed reliance upon the aforesaid

judgments in support of his contention that the present FIR is

nothing but a second FIR and therefore the same should be

quashed. On perusal of the aforesaid judgments, it would reveal

that the facts of these cases are altogether different from the facts

of the present case. In the present case, the petitioner enticed the

people for investment in a chit fund company in the name of good

return and subsequently after closing down the company, they fled

away with money. The petitioner has cheated so many persons

and has peculated the hard earned money of the innocent people.

Thus, the aforesaid judgments do not help the petitioner in any

manner.

In the facts and circumstances of the case so also in the light

of the judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court, no case for

quashing of FIR No.250/2022 dated 20.04.2022 registered at

Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh for offence under

Sections 406, 420 IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of Chit Fund Act, 1982

is made out.

Hence, this misc. petition is hereby dismissed. Stay petition

is also dismissed.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 34-MS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)