Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 160
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
DEEPAK MAHESHWARI, J.
Aruna Gupta W/o Pramod Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through P.P. – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6292 of 2017
Decided On : 07-02-2018
For the Petitioners: Mr. Kuldeep Verma and Mr. Ashish Sharma.
For the Respondents: Mr. V.S. Godara and Mr. Rajneesh Gupta.
The court cannot quash an FIR unless it finds that the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 157 - QUASHING OF FIR - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - FIR MUST DISCLOSE, PRIMA FACIE, THAT A COGNIZABLE OFFENCE HAS BEEN COMMITTED - COURT CANNOT ACT LIKE AN INVESTIGATING AGENCY OR EXERCISE POWERS LIKE AN APPELLATE COURT AT THIS STAGE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought to quash an FIR registered against them for offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, alleging that the allegations made in the FIR were vague and incorrect.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken on their face value, prima facie disclosed the commission of the offences under Section 420 and 406 IPC, which needed to be investigated by the concerned police authority.
Issues: Whether the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and whether the court could quash the FIR at this stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 2018 Cr. L.R. (SC) 54, which held that the court cannot act like an investigating agency or exercise powers like an appellate court at the stage of considering a petition to quash an FIR.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the petition and directed the concerned police authority to conduct a fair and impartial investigation in the FIR.
1. In compliance of the order dated 08.01.2018, complainant Bhagwan Sahay has been impleaded as party respondent in this misc. petition. Amended cause title has also been filed, which is taken on record.
2. Heard counsel for both the sides on the application filed on behalf of respondent for placing on record the agreement to sale and registered sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of Deepak Kumar Sharma.
3. The application is allowed and documents annexed with the application are taken on record.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
5. This Misc. Petition has been preferred on behalf of accused petitioners with the prayer to quash and set-aside FIR No. 0789/2017 registered at P.S. Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC and also seeking direction to the police authorities for fair and transparent investigation.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the FIR in regard to the agreement to sale executed on 16.06.2017 are vague and incorrect. He has drawn attention of the Court to various infirmities occurring in the said agreement to sale. He further submits that no receipt for huge amount of Rs. 15 lacs. has been submitted by the complainant. What was hurry in getting the agreement to sale executed in such a cursory and imperfect manner, has not been clarified by the complainant, which shows that no such transaction ever took place.
7. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-complainant states that the stamp paper on which the said agreement to sale was executed, was purchased by accused-petitioner No. 1 Aruna Gupta herself. The agreement bears her signature on all the pages. Counsel submits that as per the sale agreement dated 16.06.2017, period of four months was permitted to get the sale deed executed by paying the remaining amount of Rs. 10 lacs. But before expiry of period of four months, the said property was sold out by the accused-petitioner in favour of one Deepak Kumar Sharma vide sale deed dated 11.10.2017. Counsel submits that this clearly shows criminal intention of accused-petitioners to defraud the complainant and make unlawful gain from him.
8. Taking note of the rival arguments advanced by both the sides, this Court is of the view that all these points require a thorough and fair investigation. Further, the facts mentioned in the FIR, even if taken on their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of the offences under Section 420 and 406 IPC, which needs to be investigated by the concerned police authority.
9. It is apt to note that in the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 2018 Cr. L.R. (SC) 54, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“26. The law on the question as to when a registration of the F.I.R. is challenged seeking its quashing by the accused under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code and what are the powers of the High Court and how the High Court should deal with such question is fairly well settled.
27. This Court in State of West Bengal and Others vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and Others, AIR 1982 SC 949 had the occasion to deal with this issue. Y.V. Chandrachud, the learned Chief Justice speaking for Three Judge Bench laid down the following principle:
“Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the Court will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation in the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence.
The condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under Section 157 of the Code is that the F.I.R. must disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. It is wrong to suppose that the police have an unfettered discretion to commence investigation
