Point of Law : Extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. High Court cannot go beyond the allegations made in the F.I.R. or rely upon extraneous consideration.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners have preferred these petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 55/2023 registered at Police Station Sayala, District Jalore for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 366-A, 376(2)(N) and 376-D of IPC and Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of POCSO Act, Section 84 of Juvenile Act and Section 67 of IT Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prosecutrix was a major at the relevant time and the documents in support of same were on record in which the prosecutrix was a major. Counsel further submits that the prosecutrix and Bhaga Ram both took Police protection from this Court and they have also resided in live-in relationship for some time and now a false FIR has been levelled against the petitioners. In these circumstances, since the FIR lodged against the petitioners is frivolous, it may be quashed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petitions.

4. I have considered the arguments and according to the perusal of the FIR, prosecutrix was merely 14 years old as mentioned in the FIR and a specific role has been assigned to the petitioners. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the FIR is frivolous. Furthermore, FIR cannot be quashed.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, laid down guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and criminal proceedings. The Court held:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ult