1988 Supreme(Raj) 479
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
N.M.Kasliwal, J.
J. Om Prakash - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Misc Petition No. 925 of 1987.
Decided On : 23-03-1988
A court has inherent powers to protect a person from harassment and injustice, and may quash proceedings if there is no prima facie case against the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - COGNIZANCE - JURISDICTION - COURT'S INHERENT POWERS - HARASSMENT AND INJUSTICE - PETITIONER IMPLICATED WITH ULTERIOR MOTIVE - NO PRIMA FACIE CASE - PROCEEDINGS QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a film producer and director, was implicated in a criminal case involving the death of his sister-in-law, Manju. The complainant, Manju's father, alleged that the petitioner had conspired with other accused to kill Manju due to dowry demands. The petitioner challenged the cognizance taken by the Magistrate, arguing that he was falsely implicated and that there was no prima facie case against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not present in Jaipur at the time of the incident and had no connection with the alleged demand of dowry. The court also noted that the complainant had initially made no allegations against the petitioner and that the allegations of conspiracy were introduced much later, after the petitioner had filed a defamation complaint against the complainant. The court concluded that the petitioner was being harassed and that there was no justification for him to face trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the case against the petitioner. 2. Whether the petitioner was falsely implicated with ulterior motives. 3. Whether there was a prima facie case against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the case against the petitioner because there was no prima facie case against him. The court noted that the petitioner was not present in Jaipur at the time of the incident, had no connection with the alleged demand of dowry, and that the allegations of conspiracy were introduced much later, after the petitioner had filed a defamation complaint against the complainant. 2. The court found that the petitioner was falsely implicated with ulterior motives. The court noted that the complainant had initially made no allegations against the petitioner and that the allegations of conspiracy were introduced much later, after the petitioner had filed a defamation complaint against the complainant. 3. The court held that there was no prima facie case against the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner was not present in Jaipur at the time of the incident, had no connection with the alleged demand of dowry, and that the allegations of conspiracy were introduced much later, after the petitioner had filed a defamation complaint against the complainant.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner by this petition under Section 482, Cr. PC, has sought to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 7/1987 pending in the Court of judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur, against him.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Madhusudan was married to Mst. Manju D/o Peshori Lal Babbar in October, 1983. On December 15, 1985, Mst. Manju died by burning. Madhusudan reported the matter to Adarash Nagar Police Station, Jaipur. On this information, Adarsh Nagar Police Station registered the case and started investigation. During the investigation, the statements of the parents of Mst. Manju were also recorded. The parents made statements that they did not suspect any foul play. The police submitted a report that the case was of suicide. Subsequently, at the instance of father of Mst. Manju, the case was referred to CID, Jaipur for further investigation. The case was registered as FIR No. 98/1986 under Sections 306 & 498A, IPC. While the case was being investigated by the CID, a private complaint was filed by the father of Mst. Manju against Madhusudan and other under Sections 302, 306, 498A & 120B IPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The case was then transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City. The learned Magistrate by order dated November 15, 1987 took cognizance of the offences under Section 302/498A/120B IPC against the petitioner and four other accused persons and issued non bailable warrants. The petitioner J. Om Prakash, one of the accused persons, has filed petition for quashing the proceedings against him.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he has been impleaded as one of the accused persons, wrongfully, maliciously and illegally by suppressing material facts. The case of the petitioner he is that is carrying on business of producing cinematograph films in Bombay since 1959. As producer and director of cinematograph films the petitioner has earned a good name and fame in the film trade in particular and in general. The petitioner has further alleged that Shri Peshori Lal father of Mst. Manju had issued a letter dated December 26, 1985, to various parties and authorities in which he made defamatory statements against the petitioner in connection with the death of Mst Manju. In order to connect the petitioner with the death of Mst. Manju, Peshori Lal made false, incorrect, and vexatious statements that Mst. Manju resided in the company of 5 persons including the petitioner. This circular letter was published widely with a view to defame the petitioner. Shri Peshori Lal also gave an interview to a journalist, which appeared in an issue dated February 1, 1986 of the paper 'DINMAN'. According to the petitioner, the statement appearing in the said article was per se defamatory of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed a criminal case against Peshori Lal and the journalist under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC in the Court of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate (Esplanade) Court on or about February 20, 1986. Before filing the said complaint the petitioner also served a notice dated February 5, 1986 on Peshori Lal. Peshori Lal sent a reply of the aforesaid notice through his advocate. According to the petitioner, neither the circular letter dated December 26, 1985, nor the reply sent by Peshori Lal established any acts leading to the establishment of any conspiracy which would have remotely involved the petitioner with the death of Manju.
4. It has been further alleged that Peshori Lal filed a transfer application on September 17, 1986 in the Supreme Court for transferring the criminal case lodged by the petitioner from the Court of Bombay to the Court of Delhi. The said transfer application came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court. In the transfer application Peshori Lal had clearly stated that his daughter resided with her husband and father-in-law at Jaipur. It was no where stated that the petitioner ever stayed in Jaipur. In one of th
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
