Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 288
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
VIJAY BISHNOI, J.
RATNA RAM — Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent
Criminal Misc(Pet.) Nos. 544, 543 and 368 of 2018
Decided on : 16-03-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Farzand Ali and Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocates,
For the Respondent:Mr. P.R. Singh, Dr. B.L. Meena, Mr. Dinesh Rohadiya, Mr. Manoj Bhandari and Mr. J.R. Choudhary, Advocates
THE HIGH COURT WILL EXERCISE ITS POWER TO QUASH AN FIR SPARINGLY AND WITH CIRCUMSPECTION, AND ONLY IN RARE CASES. WHERE THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE FIR CONSTITUTE A PRIMA FACIE CASE, THE FIR CANNOT BE QUASHED.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITIONS - QUASHING OF FIR - SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 2015 - SECTIONS 3(1)(P) AND 3(2)(VA) - IPC - SECTION 306 - SUICIDE - HARASSMENT - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - POWER OF HIGH COURT TO QUASH FIR - PRIMA FACIE CASE - RUPAN DEOL BAJAJ (MRS) & ANR. V. KANWAR PAL SINGH GILL & ANR. - STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. V. BHAJAN LAL & ORS. - RATIO DECIDENDI - THE HIGH COURT WILL EXERCISE ITS POWER TO QUASH AN FIR SPARINGLY AND WITH CIRCUMSPECTION, AND ONLY IN RARE CASES. WHERE THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE FIR CONSTITUTE A PRIMA FACIE CASE, THE FIR CANNOT BE QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
THE PETITIONERS WERE ACCUSED OF ABUSING AND HARASSING THE DECEASED PERSONS, LEADING THEM TO COMMIT SUICIDE. THE PETITIONERS FILED CRIMINAL MISC. PETITIONS TO QUASH THE FIR LODGED AGAINST THEM, ARGUING THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE DECEASED PERSONS COMMITTED SUICIDE DUE TO THEIR HARASSMENT.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT FOUND THAT THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE FIR CONSTITUTED A PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND THAT THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THEIR CONTENTION THAT THE ALLEGATIONS WERE ABSURD.
Issues: WHETHER THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE FIR CONSTITUTED A PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT HELD THAT THE POWER OF QUASHING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS WILL BE EXERCISED VERY SPARINGLY AND WITH CIRCUMSPECTION AND THAT TOO IN THE RARE OF THE RAREST CASES. IT IS ALSO HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE REFERRED JUDGMENT THAT WHERE THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE FIR CONSTITUTE A PRIMA FACIE CASE, THE FIR CANNOT BE QUASHED.
Final Decision: THE COURT DISMISSED THE CRIMINAL MISC. PETITIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
These criminal misc. petitions have been filed on behalf of the petitioners with a prayer for quashing FIR No. 9/2018 dated 21.1.2018 of Police Station Soorpaliya, Distt. Nagaur for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC and Sections 3(1)(p) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 against them.
2. The aforementioned FIR is lodged at the instance of complainant-respondent No. 2 with the allegation that his son Gena Ram, daughter-in-law Santosh, grand son Ganpat Singh and grand daughter Sumitra have committed suicide on 21.1.2018 on account of constant harassment by the petitioners - Ratna Ram, Radha Kishan and Bhanwaru Khan.
3. Pursuant to registration of the aforementioned FIR, the police have started investigation and the same is pending.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that there is no iota of evidence on record to suggest that the deceased persons namely Gena Ram, Ganpat Singh, Santosh and Sumitra committed suicide on account of harassment by the petitioners. It is contended that as a matter of fact, in the year 2012, petitioner Radha Kishan lodged a complaint with the Police Station Kotwali, Nagaur in relation to a theft committed in his house. It is further contended that deceased Gena Ram and petitioner Radha Kishan both were serving as Constable and Head Constable respectively in the police department in the year 2012 and were residing in the police quarters situated at police line, Nagaur. The quarters of Gena Ram and Radha Kishan were situated in front of each other.
5. The police in relation to the FIR lodged at the instance of petitioner Radha Kishan came to the conclusion that the theft in his house was committed by Ganpat Singh son of Gena Ram. It is contended that the investigation in the said theft case was conducted by as many as six police officials and out of which, five police officials have concluded that Ganpat Singh son of Gena Ram had committed the said theft in the house of Radha Kishan. However in the said case police have filed a negative final report in the court of concerned Magistrate.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after one month and twenty two days of lodgement of the FIR NO. 171/2012 by Radha Kishan, Ganpat Singh son of Gena Ram had also lodged an FIR with the allegation that Radha Kishan and other accused persons are harassing his family members and have also assaulted them. The said FIR is nothing but was a counter blast of the FIR lodged by Radha Kishan. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the said FIR lodged by Ganpat Singh, the police after thorough investigation have filed a negative final report while concluding that the allegations levelled by Ganpat Singh are false.
7. It is also submitted that in the FIR lodged by Radha Kishan in relation to the theft in his house, the police had filed a negative final report before the concerned Magistrate and when the same was pending an application was moved on behalf of the Investigating Agency to conduct further investigation in the matter before the concerned Magistrate and the concerned Magistrate had returned the case file to the Investigating Agency for that purpose.
8. At this stage, Ganpat Singh and Gena Ram have preferred S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4243/2017 before this Court challenging the said FIR of theft bearing No. 171/2012 of Police Station Kotwali, Distt. Nagaur for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC filed on behalf of petitioner Radha Kishan. The said criminal misc. petition was ultimately dismissed by this Court on 8.1.2018 on the basis of the factual report submitted by the I.O. wherein, it is clearly mentioned that prima facie case against Ganpat Singh and Gena Ram is proved and recovery of stolen articles is to be carried out.
9. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that on account of dismissal of the said S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4243/2017, Gen
