The court highlighted the need for the allegations in the FIR to disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and emphasized that quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule.

JUDGMENT

BHARAT P.DESHPANDE, J. - Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner preferred the present petition under Sec. 482 of CrPC together with Article 226 of the Constitution of India thereby challenging the FIR No.14 of 2019 registered at Crime Branch Ribandar under Sec. 409, 420 r/w 34 of IPC on the ground that such FIR is registered only with malafide intentions and to take revenge since the petitioner was opposing mega projects in his village.

3. Heard Mr Ambrish Gavandolkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr G. Nagvenkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ancestors of Mrs Gunavanti Monteiro and others were the owners of the property. However, somewhere in the year 1970 said properties were surveyed under the new survey and allotted Survey No.43/3, 44/1 and 44/3. On 03/04/1996, Mrs Gunavanti Monteiro sold the said property to the petitioner. Somewhere in 2008, Civil Suit was filed bearing No.32 of 2008 alleging that the heirs of Antonio Manuel Monteiro be declared as owners. The said suit was settled by way of filing Consent Terms and on 03/07/2015, Consent decree was passed. The Deed of Ratification and confirmation of Sale was executed between the petitioner herein and Mrs Gunavanti Monteiro and other heirs.

5. Somewhere in January 2019, the petitioner organized a protest near Chimbel Lake against burning of many trees and the construction of an illegal road by the Government in Chimbel village. The Revenue Minister in his interview stated that he will form a Special Investigation Team to investigate land grabbing by the petitioner at Chimbel. Accordingly, an FIR was registered on 31/01/2019 against the petitioner and others thereby alleging the offences under Ss. 409, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the complainant was lodged by the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi Goa dtd. 31/01/2019 wherein no ingredients of Ss. 409, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC are made out for the registration of FIR. He would submit that from the date of such registration of FIR, till date investigation is claimed to have been conducted by SIT but no charge sheet is filed and the only ploy to keep the FIR pending against the petitioner for stopping him thereby raising the public issues. He submitted that the contents of the complaint filed by the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi clearly goes to show that the petitioner's name is specifically included along with Gunavanti Monteiro and other Government officials. He would submit that from the last 3 1/2 years, there is absolutely no progress as there is no case found against the petitioner and till date so-called Government Officer including their names are not added as an accused person.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that investigation is going on and the same is at the final stage. However, a reply filed on behalf of the Investigating Officer state that apart from the petitioner and Gunavanti Monteiro as disclosed in the FIR, no other name as an accused is found to be added. Vide order dtd. 01/02/2019, SIT was formed including three Senior Police Officers. However, till date, no chargesheet is filed.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V/s. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2021 SC 1918. 2. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr v/s. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T.H. Vijayalakshmi and Anr., 2021 ALL SCR (Cri) 2031. 3. State of Karnataka and Another v/s. Pastor P. Raju, (2006) 6 SCC 728.

9. In the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure(supra), following points emerges:

i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offen