Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Islamdeen S/o Shri Mehardin – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 2195 of 2021, S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 1024 of 2019
Decided On : 14-03-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B - Settled dispute amicably – Quash FIR - Petitions preferred for quashing of FIR – Parties have resolved their dispute amicably and do not wish to continue criminal proceedings.
Finding of the Court :
Parties have settled dispute amicably and that is essentially in between parties which is not affecting public peace and tranquility, therefore, with a view to maintain harmony and to resolve dispute finally in between parties, court feels that continuance of investigation in impugned FIR would surely amount to an abuse of process of law, therefore, to prevent same impugned FIR is quashed.
Result: Petitions allowed.
ORDER :
1. The instant Criminal Misc. Petitions have been preferred by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 187/2008 registered at P.S. Pokhran, Distt. Jaisalmer for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to filing of impugned FIR No. 187/2008, P.S. Pokhran, District Jaisalmer, the complainant had filed another FIR No. 74/2003 at P.S. Pokhran, Jaisalmer, in which the same set of allegations have been levelled against him as levelled in the instant FIR (No. 187/2008). In yet another FIR No. RC JDH 2007 A0013/2007 which was lodged at P.S. Superintendent of Police, Central Investigation Bureau, Jodhpur before lodging of FIR No. 187/2008, at the behest of Chairman, Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank, similar allegations have been levelled. In FIR No. RC JDH 2007 A-0013/2007, the police had filed negative final report before the Court concerned, therefore, the petitioners have filed the instant Misc. Petition to quash the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 187/2008. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the dispute in between the parties has been resolved through an amicable settlement by an affidavit dated 23.04.2017 and a written letter dated 23.04.2017 was also sent to the IO to inform about the same. Now, there remains no controversy in between them and the parties do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings any further.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material available on record.
4. For the purpose of examination and scrutiny, it is felt appropriate to go through the contents of previous two FIRs and their result as well as the contents of the FIR impugned.
5. The brief facts as per the first FIR bearing No. 074/2003 lodged at the behest of respondent No. 2 Kaan Singh are that it was alleged that on 26.03.2002, the complainant attempted to obtain a loan from Thar Aanchalik Gramin Bank, Pokhran, for the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- by making a down payment of Rs. 61,000/-. The bank approved the loan and the payment was made with cheque no. 145709 issued in the name of M/s Asian Agro Sales. The cheque No. 145709 was cashed by M/s Asian Agro Sales. The aforementioned firm did not provide the complainant with the tractor and the complainant filed an FIR on 02.05.2003 at Police Station Pokhran against Shri Illias Khan, M/s Asian Agro Sales firm's owner, in accordance with Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial has been concluded and vide judgment dated 01.09.2010, the accused-Illias Khan has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC and has been sentenced with maximum of five years of rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 7,00,000/- as well as under Section 406 of IPC and has been sentenced with maximum of one year of rigorous imprisonment.
6. The brief facts as per the Second Report bearing FIR No. RC JDH 2007 A-0013/2007 lodged by the Chairman, Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank on 24.11.2007 are that the bank manager of the Thar Aanchalik Gramin Bank in Pokhran, Sh. Ramdev Deval, used his position for inappropriate gains. He was involved in a criminal conspiracy with M/s Asian Agro Sales, causing additional malfeasance to the bank. The complainant requested for the loan which was sanctioned by the then manager Ramdev Deval for the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a tractor. The manager using his official position knowingly allowed the firm to withdraw the loan without following the set procedure resulting in an unwarranted loss to the bank and an unlawful gain to the enterprise. The agricultural land required a mortgage deed to be created but R.D. Deval purposefully did not follow the prescribed process and further permitted the company to withdraw the loan amount. Sh. Illyas Khan (proprietor) failed to deliver the tractor to the complainant and Mr. Deval failed to obtain the char
SupremeToday
When dispute is essentially inter se between parties, either they are relatives; neighbours and which does not affect society High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash FIR.
The registration of multiple FIRs for the same allegations is impermissible and constitutes an abuse of process, particularly when prior investigations have concluded with negative findings.
The main legal point established is that the power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, especially in cases where the allegations do not prima-facie c....
A second FIR cannot be registered for the same occurrence if an investigation is already ongoing for the first FIR, as it constitutes an abuse of process of law.
A second FIR cannot be registered for the same incident; investigations must be consolidated under the first FIR to prevent duplicity.
The court has the authority to quash an FIR if it finds that it is exactly the same as an earlier FIR and if there are subsequent developments, such as the cancellation of the mutation in question.
The court established that FIRs can be quashed when parties reach an amicable settlement, emphasizing the importance of resolving disputes outside of criminal proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
