High Court
Case Details
Reserved on 17.02.2023 Delivered on 03.03.2023 Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19232 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ram Chandra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Sisodia,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rupendra Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J. (Per Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar, J.) 1. Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether 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." 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record of the case as well as above-mentioned judgement of the Apex Court, it emerges that on the intervention made by the first informant, postmortem was conducted on the dead body of her husband, wherein, 6 doctor found the cause of death as ‘uncertain’ and viscera was preserved. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are his defence, which cannot be looked into while dealing with a writ petition seeking quashing of a First Information Report. 8. Moreover, the allegations made in the First Information Report clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences and the allegations are serious in nature. Therefore, prayer of the petitioner to quash the First Information Report is completely misconceived and is rejected. 9.
Arguments
the petitioners, Sri Rupendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned AGA for the State-respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- "(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned first information report dated 13.11.2022 bearing Case Crime No. 0736 of 2022, under Sections 302, 506, 406 IPC, Police Station Gajraula, District Amorha. (II) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 1 (III) Award cost of this writ petition to the petitioners." 3. As per prosecution version, marriage of first informant was solemnized with one Chandrapal and after marriage, family members of husband have ousted her from his house, thereafter, she had filed a case against the petitioners. It is further alleged that on 18.08.2018, present petitioners murdered her husband with the intention to grab the entire property. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Deceased was a patient of Cancer. It is further submitted that petitioners have no intention to grab property as there is no property in the name of their family. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as has been alleged in the FIR. It is further submitted that at the time of marriage, Chandrapal was living at the house of his father and, thereafter, he has started to live in a rented house and present First Information Report was lodged against the petitioners only for blackmailing them. It is further submitted that no offence under Sections 302, 506, 406 IPC is made out against the petitioners as the necessary ingredients for making out the aforesaid offences are completely lacking. It is further submitted that investigation against the petitioners are still going on and till date, no charge sheet/final report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer concerned. 2 5. On the other hand, Sri Rupendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the first informant and learned AGA for the State have very vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submit that two cases are still pending against the petitioners, filed by the first informant and they are living separately since 2012, as such, petitioners are involved in committing the aforesaid offence. 6. In case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; State of Kerela & Ors. O.C. Kuttan & Ors. : (1999) 2 SCC 651; State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & Ors. : (2017) 2 SCC 779; P. Chidambaram vs. Director of Enforcement : (2019) 9 SCC 24 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. : 2021 SCC Online SC 315 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that “High Court should not interfere in the investigation which was to be done by the State as that would result in miscarriage of justice”. In the judgement of the Apex Court in case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the following principles of law emerged, which are as follows:- "From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal 3 Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ''rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific 4 spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; 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. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the 5 learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by
Decision
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law. Order Date :-03.03.2023 Ashutosh (Gajendra Kumar, J.) (Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.) 7 Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad