The main legal point established in the judgment is that the continuance of an FIR and investigation can be considered an abuse of process of law, and the court has the power to quash such proceedings if they do not serve the ends of justice.

ORDER

1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the accused petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No. 89/2010 registered at P.S. Moti Dungri, Distt. Jaipur city(east) for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC.

2. Briefly stated the fact of the case are that the aforementioned FIR, came to be lodged, alleging inter alia that on 04.04.2010 at around 07:00-07:30 when the complaint and his family members were performing daily pursuits at their home, suddenly, the petitioner along with almost 13 persons barged forcibly in the house of the petitioners and abruptly made assault over them. For the aforementioned incident two FIRs have been lodged; one at the instance of the petitioner No. 1, Siyaram Agarwal, which was registered as FIR No. 90/2010 for offences under Section 143, 323, 379, and 452 of IPC and the other bearing FIR No. 89/2010 for offences under section 341 and 323 of IPC at the instance of complainant-respondent No. 2 Om Prakash. The petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR No. 89/2010.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned public prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant, gone through the entire material, as made available on record, including the charge-sheet pertaining to FIR No. 90/2010.

4. At the threshold learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there were no two incidents. Both the FIRs have been registered in relation to a single incident albeit with two different narration of facts. He submits that an incisive probe has been conducted in both the matters by the Investigating Officer. After investigation, the complainant party has been found involved in committing offence under Sections 143, 323, 452 of IPC and as many as 6 persons namely 1.Dhanraj, 2. Mohan Saini,3. Om Prakash, 4. Smt. Gopi, 5. Smt. Sushila, 6. Smt. Nanita @ Naini have been charge-sheeted for committing offence of forming an unlawful assembly, voluntarily causing hurt and offence of house breaking.

5. The learned Trial Court after applying its judicial mind, took cognizance of the offence and trial is under process against the complainant party; thus, in this view of the matter, he submits that when indisputably the instances are not two, but one and the complainant party has been held responsible for committing offence in the FIR lodged at the behest of the petitioner party then certainly for the same incident forcing the petitioners to face the course of the investigation and then trial, would surely be an abuse of process of law.

6. Learned counsel further submits that from the bare perusal of the FIR, no offence under Section 341 of the IPC is disclosed since there are no allegations for wrongfully restraining the victim complainant party. It is submitted that section 323 of IPC being a non-cognizable offence therefore no FIR can be lodged in respect of Section 323 of IPC as the same is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 154 of the Cr. P. C. He further submits that the matter is pending since last 11 years, the petitioner No. 1 is a practicing lawyer and the family having good repute in the society, pendency of the case against them is a mental trauma which consistently and persistently agonise them. It is submitted that since the allegations are highly absurd and preposterous as well as patently false and against the provisions of law, therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the FIR impugned No. 89/2010 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned public prosecutor and Mr. Mahesh Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer on the ground that the matter requires investigation and due to interim order dated 07.07.2010, the same could not be completed. It is also submitted that the FIR No. 89/2010 was lodged first at the point of time.

8. Heard, perused the FIR No. 89/2010 and its relevant papers as well as gone through the FIR No. 90/2010 and its charge sheet.

9. After anxious consideration of the submissions made at the bar, perusal of the record,