The court emphasized that the inherent power of the High Court should not be used to stifle a legitimate prosecution and that the question of mala fides is not relevant if the complaint is correct and the offence has been committed.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR No.234/2018 dated 04.10.2018 registered at Police Station Uniyara District Tonk for the offence under Sections 66, 66(a)(b) 66(c) 66(e) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for brevity, "the Act of 2000") and Sections 499, 501, 354 (d), 509, 506 and 504 of IPC.

2. Drawing attention of this Court towards the FIR No.241/2017 dated 11.05.2017 registered by Nandlal Sharma, father-in-law of the petitioner, at Police Station Nayapura, District Kota City, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that therein the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against Pawan Jangir son of the respondent No.2/complainant and Mukut Bihari Alodiya for the offences under Sections 419, 500, 509 of IPC and Sections 66-C, 66-D and 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. He submitted that to counterblast the aforesaid FIR, he has falsely been implicated in the instant FIR. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is resident of United States of America for last about 11 years and to harass and victimize him, the instant FIR was lodged on private complaint. He, therefore, prayed for quashing the same.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted the status report dated 07.02.2021 furnished by the Station House Officer, Uniyara, District Tonk which is taken on record. As per the status report, on completion of investigation, allegations against the present petitioner have been found to be established and charge-sheet has been proposed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant opposing the prayer submitted that the contents of FIR disclose commission of cognizable offence and hence, the same cannot be quashed.

5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

6. The contents of FIR reveal commission of cognizable offence. It is trite law that if bare reading of the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence, this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, should not quash the same.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.r AIR 2008 SCC2781, held as under:-

"30.We may reiterate and emphasise that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhury (1992) 4 SCC 305; Raghubir Saran Dr. v. State of Bihar 1964 (2) SCR 336; Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451; and Zhandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another 2005 (1) SCC 122]."

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bajjoori Kanthaiah and Ors., AIR 2009 SCC 671, held as under:-

"8. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from givin