Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Aditya Lodha Bunty vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:8476) on 16 February, 2024

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2024:RJ-JD:8476]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2675/2018

Aditya Lodha Bunty S/o Kushal Chand Lodha, Aged About 50
Years, B/c Oswal, R/o 947, 10Th D Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Narpat Lal S/o Parasmal, R/o Vill. Chamu, P.s. Dechu,
         Teh. Shergarh, Dist. Jodhpur
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Deepak Menaria
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
                                 Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

16/02/2024

Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for

quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 80/2017

registered at Police Station Sardarpura, District Jodhpur for

offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Narpat Lal

filed a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur stating

therein that a transaction of Rs. 49 lacs took place from his

account for which he had no knowledge. He previously worked as

Driver cum office boy with the accused Aditya Lodha and during

his employment, his PAN Card, driving license and other

documents were taken and bank account was opened in Punjab

National Bank while misusing his IDs. On the basis of said

[2024:RJ-JD:8476] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-2675/2018]

complaint, FIR No. 80/2017 came to be registered and police

started investigation.

During investigation, the complainant compromised the

matter and stated that he does not want to proceed with the

matter. On the basis of said compromise, the petitioner had

earlier filed criminal misc. petition being S.B. Criminal Misc.

Petition No. 1239/2017 and this Court vide order dated

27.04.2017 while recording the factum of compromise, directed

the investigating agency to complete the investigation in

accordance with law. The investigating agency after due

investigation, submitted negative Final report which was accepted

by the competent Magistrate vide order dated 08.05.2017.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that after acceptance of

negative Final report, the investigating officer is again

investigating the matter and has issued notice to the petitioner to

appear before him for interrogation. It is submitted that once the

negative Final report has been accepted, the investigating officer

has to take permission from the Court concerned to investigate

the matter, however, no such permission has been taken by the

investigating agency. It is submitted that the order passed by the

court below accepting the negative FR has not been challenged by

the complainant and therefore, the investigating being conducted

by the investigating agency amounts to circumventing the judicial

order passed by the Court, therefore, the entire criminal

proceedings arising out of C.R. No. 80/2017 are liable to be

quashed and set aside. He placed reliance upon judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Peethambaran Vs. State of

kerala & Anr. Reported in 2023 LiveLAW (SC) 402.

[2024:RJ-JD:8476] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-2675/2018]

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the

complainant vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner,

however, they do not dispute the fact that the complainant has

not challenged the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate

accepting the negative FR. However, if some new evidence come

before the investigating agency, the investigating agency can re-

investigate the matter.

I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone

through the FIR and material on record.

From the perusal of the FIR and material on record, it is

revealed that the investigating officer after due investigation

submitted negative FR and the said negative FR has been

accepted by the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur

way back on 08.05.2017 and said order has not been challenged

by the complainant before any court of law and without setting

aside of said order, the investigating officer has started re-

investigation. The SHO concerned was called in the Court who

submitted an affidavit and stated that he joined his duties recently

on 14.08.2023 and case diary was handed over to him on

22.02.2024 and no investigation has been conducted by him so

far.

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:

[2024:RJ-JD:8476] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-2675/2018]

"102. 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 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.

[2024:RJ-JD:8476] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-2675/2018]

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 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."

[2024:RJ-JD:8476] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-2675/2018]

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

of the judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is

of the opinion that in the present case, the investigating agency

after due investigation had submitted negative FR which has been

accepted the competent Court and said order has not been

challenged by the complainant, therefore, the criminal

proceedings arising out of FIR No. 80/2017 are liable to be

quashed and set aside.

Accordingly, the present misc. petition is hereby allowed.

The entire criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 80/2017

lodged at Police station Sardarpura are hereby quashed and set