2023 Supreme(Bom) 749
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. Sonak, M.S. Karnik, JJ.
Joao C. Pereira – Appellant
Versus
State of Goa – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 181 of 2019
Decided On : 20-04-2023
Galileo Francisco Teles, Advocate, Pravin Faldessai, Advocate, Dhaval Zaveri, Advocate, Nehal Govekar, Advocate
The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR or complaint must disclose the commission of the alleged offences.
Headnote:
Quashing of Charge-sheet - Criminal Offences - Sec. 339, 341, 504, 506, 427 of IPC - State of Haryana & Ors. vs Bhajanlal & Ors. - 1992 Supp (1) SCC 336
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners seek quashing of Charge-sheet No.6/2015 filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Margao (JMFC) in FIR No.68/2014 and the proceedings in Criminal Case No.292/S/2018/I before the learned JMFC at Margao. The petitioners argue that the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and charge sheet do disclose the commission of the offences for which the petitioners are charged. The court emphasized that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the impugned charge sheet and FIR should be quashed based on the allegations made by the petitioners and the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR or complaint disclose the commission of offences the petitioners allegedly committed, and that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.
Final Decision: The petition seeking quashing of the charge sheet and the proceedings before the JMFC was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the petitioners. The court clarified that its observations should not be taken into account during the trial.
JUDGMENT
M.S.SONAK, J. - Heard Mr Galileo Teles for the petitioners, Mr Pravin Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr Dhaval Zaveri for respondent no.2.
2. The petitioners, arraigned accused nos.1 and 2, seek quashing of Charge-sheet No.6/2015 filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Margao (JMFC) in FIR No.68/2014 and the proceedings in Criminal Case No.292/S/2018/I before the learned JMFC at Margao.
3. Mr Teles, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. Therefore, relying on State of Haryana & Ors. vs Bhajanlal & Ors. - 1992 Supp (1) SCC 336, Mr Teles submits that the impugned charge sheet and FIR may be quashed.
4. Mr Teles submits that in the past, respondent no.2 has filed similar frivolous complaints, some of which were quashed by this Court. He refers to the decision of this Court dtd. 10/6/2016 in Criminal Writ Petition No.130/2015.
5. Mr Teles submits that the investigating agencies, after investigations, had filed an 'A' Summary Report before the learned JMFC. This was because there was no evidence whatsoever based upon which the charges alleged against the petitioners could ever be proved. He submits that this is an additional factor based upon which the impugned charge sheet and the impugned FIR must be quashed.
6. Mr Teles submits that the complainant has admitted that the alleged incident occurred on the petitioners' property. Mr Teles, therefore, offers that the exception to Sec. 339 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with "wrongful restraint", is clearly attracted. Accordingly, based upon the same, no offence under Sec. 339, which is punishable under Sec. 341 of the IPC, can be said to have been made out against the petitioners.
7. Mr Teles submitted that the complainant, in his complaint, stated that he was not provoked in any manner and that he sat peacefully in his car for about fifteen minutes. Mr Teles submits that in the absence of any serious provocation, offences under Ss. 504 and 506 cannot be said to have been made out. Mr Teles presents that the ingredients of Sec. 427 of IPC are also not fulfilled. For all these reasons, Mr Teles submits that the impugned charge sheet and the impugned FIR must be quashed.
8. Mr Pravin Faldessai and Mr Dhaval Zaveri submit that the ingredients of the offences for which the petitioners are charged have been duly made out. They submit that the issue as to whether the petitioners are entitled to benefit from the exception to Sec. 339 of IPC is a matter that will have to be examined after trial and not at this stage. They submit that the onus of proving the exception shifts on the petitioners. Finally, they submit that the 'A' Final Summary Report was not accepted by the learned JMFC by order dtd. 13/7/2018, to which there is no challenge, assuming that such a challenge was permissible. For all these reasons, Mr Faldessai and Mr Zaveri submit that this petition may be dismissed.
9. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.
10. The impugned FIR is based upon respondent no.2's complaint dtd. 4/6/2014. The complaint is transcribed below for the convenience of reference:-
" Aleixo A. Pereira 150 - Utorda-Margao Salcete - Goa. 04/06/2014 To, The P.I. Verna Police Station Sub: Complaint against Mr Joao C. pereira and Gervasio Pereira, both residents of Utorda, Near Casa Ligorio Sir,
The undersigned had gone to meet Mr. Ali and Mr. Rahul at around 12.05 afternoon to Ramesh Hotel - Utorda. That after meeting, the said two persons and while coming back. Just near Casa Ligorio Hotel, one white colour Maruti 800, driven by Gervasio was moving at snail's pace. That my car had to slow down and follow the said Maruti 800 for about 75 Mts. That exactly opposite to the entrance of J - The Top Restaurant, Mr. Gervasio stopped his car and parked it across the Road and blocked my car forcibly.