Point of Law: Power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent abuse of process of any Court and to secure ends of justice.

ORDER :

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8416/2022 :

1. The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for fair, impartial and effective investigation in FIR No.0225/2022, Police Station Kuchera, District Nagaur, for offences under Sections 452, 427, 323, 354, 384 & 34 of IPC.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that on the basis of investigation, the offences have been prima facie proved against the present accused persons. In these circumstances, the present misc. petition for fair and impartial investigation, has become infructuous. Accordingly, the present misc. petition is hereby dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7720/2022:-

3. The petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.0225/2022 registered at Police Station Kuchera, District Nagaur for the offence under Sections 452, 427, 323, 354, 384 & 34 of IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a false FIR has been registered against the petitioners and they have been involved in the alleged crime. It is argued that the petitioners No.1 & 2 were not even present at the Gas agency at the time of the alleged incident and petitioner no.3 who is a water supplier was present at the Gas agency. The allegation of outraging the modesty of respondent no.2 is false and concocted. It is submitted that an agreement to sale was executed by one Pancha Ram in favour of petitioner no.1 and also handed over possession of the land to the petitioner no.1 on the same day. Thereafter, the sale deed dated 13.11.2009 was executed in favour of respondent no.2. Moreover, HPCL which is the supplier of Gas Agency has also issued Letter of Intent in favour of husband of respondent no.2 on 24.09.2010 who executed a power of attorney dated 06.10.2010 in favour of petitioner no.1 and also executed an agreement with wife of petitioner no.1 stating therein that he has received the sale consideration and agreed upon receiving 20% of the income after deducting the expenses incurred in operating the Gas Agency. However, after the death of husband of respondent no.2, the respondent no.2 has lodged this false and frivolous FIR, despite the fact that the respondent no.2 had knowledge about the aforesaid agreements. Thus, it is argued that the petitioner no.2 is having all the rights to operate the Gas agency and the respondent no.2 only with a view to harass and humiliate the present petitioners, has lodged the FIR. In these circumstances, the FIR lodged against the petitioners may be quashed.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that it is well settled legal position that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only in exceptional cases when the Court finds that from the allegation made in the FIR/complaint, prima facie no offence is made out against the accused, however, in the present case, from the evidence collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no case is made out against the petitioners.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the material on record.

7. The complainant in the FIR so also in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that on 31.10.2022, the accused petitioners forcibly entered into the Gas agency and started smashing the office furniture and articles and also torn her clothes. They threatened of dire consequences if the Gas agency is not transferred in his name. Thereafter, on 01.11.2022, they broke open the locks of Gas agency and on the next day, they did not allow the complainant and his daughter to enter into the Gas agency. The statement of the complainant has also been corroborated by independent witnesses. The police after investigation has also submitted a report that the offences are prima facie proved against the present petitioners. Thus, upon perusal of FIR and considering th