Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.C. RAO, J.
Dewang @ Devlo Sureshbhai Brahmbhatt – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 7357 of 2020
Decided on : 14-07-2020
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 394, 365, 171, 384, 504, 506(2) and 120-B – Sought for quash of FIR – Foreign currency – Robbery – It is alleged in complaint that first informant, who is doing business of trading for commission, was travelling on his motorcycle. He was intercepted by a car which does not bear number plate – It is alleged that three persons came out from said car and robbed the informant of Rs.40,65,200/-, which he was having as a parcel of foreign currency – It is alleged that present petitioner had asked for Rs.10 Lacs if complainant wanted above parcel –Therefore, complaint was registered by informant against present petitioner – Held, It is no more res-integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding – Order accordingly. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
It is alleged in the complaint that on 22.11.2019, the first informant, who is doing the business of trading for commission, was travelling on his motorcycle. He was intercepted by a car which does not bear the number plate. It is alleged that three persons came out from the said car and robbed the informant of Rs.40,65,200/-, which he was having as a parcel of foreign currency. It is alleged that the present petitioner had asked for Rs.10 Lacs if complainant wanted the above parcel. Therefore, the aforesaid complaint was registered by the informant against the present petitioner. However, the present petitioner is neither arrested nor the charge-sheet is filed against him, while the charge-sheet is filed against the three co-accused.
Findings of the court:
It is no more res-integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding.
Result: Order accordingly
JUDGMENT :
By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the ‘Code’), the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. being C.R.No.11215038200104 of 2020 dated 20/03/2020 registered with Vaasad Police Station, District : Anand for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 365, 171, 384, 504, 506(2) and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under :
It is alleged in the complaint that on 22.11.2019, the first informant, who is doing the business of trading for commission, was travelling on his motorcycle. He was intercepted by a car which does not bear the number plate. It is alleged that three persons came out from the said car and robbed the informant of Rs.40,65,200/-, which he was having as a parcel of foreign currency. It is alleged that the present petitioner had asked for Rs.10 Lacs if complainant wanted the above parcel. Therefore, the aforesaid complaint was registered by the informant against the present petitioner. However, the present petitioner is neither arrested nor the charge-sheet is filed against him, while the charge-sheet is filed against the three co-accused.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that according to Ms. Bela Prajapati, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 i.e. original complainant, the dispute is compromised between the parties i.e. the complainant and the present petitioner and the respondent No.2 does not have any objection if the FIR is quashed.
4. At the time of arguments, Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that though it is alleged by the other side that there are 14 antecedents of the present petitioner but, in most of the cases, he is acquitted. It is contended that only two minor cases are pending, wherein minor penalty is prescribed. The learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the present petitioner is not the main accused and he is not involved in the alleged robbery. The only allegation against the present petitioner is that he had shown the photograph of the other co-accused and demanded Rs. 10 Lacs by cheque from the informant to recover the robbed amount from the other co-accused. It is contended that no cheque number is mentioned in the entire charge-sheet. It is contended that the present petitioner is involved in a minor offence of threatening and the allegation against the present petitioner is not genuine. It is vehemently contended that at the instance of the present petitioner other co-accused were arrested. It is contended that on the other day, the complainant himself had given a public notice, wherein he has stated that the police has written a wrong complaint and the petitioner has not asked anything from him and neither he was intimidated by the complainant.
4.1 In support of his submission, Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Honourable Apex Court in case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], in case of Prabhat Ahir v. State of Gujarat [2017 (9) SCC 641], in case of Nikhil Marchant v. CBI [2008 (9) SCC 677], in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gujjar [2019 (5) SCC 570] and in case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp(1) SCC 335].
5. Per contra, Mr. Patel, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed the present petition and contended that on the date of incident the present petitioner was in constant touch with the other co-accused on telephone. It is contended that from the phone records of the petitioner, it reveals that since last one year the petitioner had made more than one thousand calls to the co-accused and there are many antecedents of the present petitioner. Even after the registration of the present FIR, two other offences are registered with Anand Police Station against the present petitioner. The petitioner has win-over the witnesses, therefore, the complaint may n
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
