HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Surbhi Nanda & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 270 of 2022
Decided On : 03-02-2022
FIR Quashing - Criminal Misc. Petition - The court quashed the FIR against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 384 and 120-B IPC as the allegations in the FIR did not make out a case for the commission of the said offences.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the petitioner No.1 misbehaved with him and his wife, threatened them with dire consequences, and had apprehensions of false implication in a case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the FIR did not constitute the offences punishable under Sections 420, 384 and 120-B IPC.
Issues: Allegations of misbehavior, threats, and apprehensions of false implication by the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that an FIR can be quashed if no case for the commission of an offence is made out from the allegations in the FIR.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal misc. petition and quashed the impugned FIR against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 384 and 120-B IPC.
ORDER
1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing of FIR No.232/2021 of Police Station Kotwali Bhilwara, District Bhilwara for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 384 and 120-B IPC.
2. The aforesaid FIR was lodged by the complainant-respondent No.2 alleging therein that the petitioner No.1 got married to his son on 07.02.2019 and thereafter on 19.8.2019, petitioner No.1 left for America, where his son was residing, however after nine days, she asked the complainant to purchase her air ticket for India, which the complainant purchased and borne the expenses incurred on it. It is alleged by the complainant-respondent No.2 that his son told him that just after his marriage with petitioner No.1, her behaviour towards him was not cordial and she used to quarrel with him, though she lived with him only for nine days at America and she wanted to return back to India on her own. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 09.03.2020, the petitioner No.1 called complainant's wife and threatened her with dire consequences as also abused her. It is also alleged that the petitioner No.2, who happened to be the mother of petitioner No.1 had also telephoned to the complainant and his wife, she also abused and threatened them with dire consequences. It is also alleged that the respondent No.2 has apprehension that the petitioners may implicate him, his wife and son in a false case and may also cause damage to them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from a bare reading of the impugned FIR, it is clear that no offences under Sections 420 and 384 IPC are at all made out. Learned counsel has also submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner No.1 has filed a complaint against the respondent No.2, his wife and his son in Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences under Sections 498-A, 312, 294 and 417 IPC, wherein the concerned court at Bhopal has already taken cognizance against the respondent No.2, his wife and son. It is further submitted that even if the contents of impugned FIR are taken at its face value then, also prima facie it does not constitute any offence, particularly under Sections 420 and 384 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, prayed that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned FIR may kindly be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed this criminal misc. petition and argued that the petitioners are regularly threatening the respondent No.2, his wife and son and have also filed a false case of cruelty and dowry against them. It is, thus, prayed that the impugned FIR is not liable to be quashed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR.
6. In the impugned FIR, it is nowhere alleged by the complainant respondent No.2 that the petitioners had ever committed the offence of cheating with him. It is simply stated that when he and his family members did not raise any objection, the marriage of the petitioner No.1 was solemnized with the complainant's son on 07.02.2019. It is also nowhere alleged in the complaint that the petitioner No.1 or her family members had ever deceived the complainant or his family members to give any property. The complainant has simply alleged in the complaint that the petitioners had misbehaved with him and his wife on mobile phone twice or thrice using abusive languages and threatened them with dire consequences.
7. After reading the entire FIR, it is also difficult to undertand that as to how the offence for extortion is made out. It is nowhere alleged in the complaint that the petitioners had intentionally put the complainant in fear or fraudulently demanded any property or valuable security etc. from the complainant and his family members. Even in the complaint, it is nowhere alleged that the petitioners had ever demanded any property or money from
AI
An FIR can be quashed if no case for the commission of an offence is made out from the allegations in the FIR.
At the stage of quashing an FIR, the court should refrain from considering the truthfulness of the allegations and should not exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if a case for the commission of....
The court established that voluntary expenditures made in the context of a relationship, despite misrepresentations, do not constitute cheating unless there is clear evidence of intent to deceive and....
A second FIR on similar allegations does not constitute a cognizable offence if it lacks fresh cause of action and may lead to an abuse of the judicial process.
Prima facie cognizable offence must be made out from the contents of the FIR to prevent quashing of the FIR.
Allegations in FIR filed post-divorce petition are retaliatory, warranting quashing of criminal proceedings under inherent jurisdiction due to abuse of process.
Point of Law : Court is not required to consider on merits whether the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to in....
If allegations leading to criminal prosecution prima facie do not disclose, then power under section 482 CrPC can be exercised
Abuse of process of law in matrimonial disputes, involving entire family members without specific allegations, and continuation of prosecution against relatives of the husband would amount to abuse o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.