Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Raj) 963

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Mohit Punia – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 458/2023
Decided On : 23-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Papu Sangwa, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP, for the Respondent.

The power to quash FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and cautiously, considering the specific allegations, the absence of mala fide intentions, and the need to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF FIR - OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 406, 323, 354, 377 & 509 IPC - SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS OF HARASSMENT, DOWRY DEMAND, AND PHYSICAL AND MENTAL CRUELTY - NO GROUNDS FOR QUASHING FIR AT INVESTIGATION STAGE.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner sought to quash an FIR alleging offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 354, 377, and 509 IPC, claiming false allegations and readiness to compromise. The complainant alleged harassment, dowry demands, physical and mental cruelty, and ouster from the matrimonial home.
Finding of the Court:

The court found specific allegations against the petitioner in the FIR, including harassment, dowry demands, physical and mental cruelty, and ouster from the matrimonial home. It held that at the investigation stage, no case for quashing the FIR was made out.
Issues: Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations of false accusations and willingness to compromise.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents established by the Supreme Court in cases such as State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal & Ors. and Janta Dal Vs. H.S. Choudhary, emphasizing the cautious exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs. It highlighted the need for a prima facie case, absence of mala fide intentions, and the avoidance of stifling legitimate prosecutions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the allegations in the FIR disclosed a cognizable offense and that there were no compelling circumstances to quash the proceedings at the investigation stage.

ORDER

1. Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.0143/2021 registered at Mahila Police Station, District Bikaner for offence under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 354, 377 & 509 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 05.02.2017. Counsel submits that after a lapse of so many years, this FIR has been lodged against the petitioner levelling false allegations against him in order to put undue pressure upon the petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to compromise the matter and also ready to keep the respondent No.2 with him but she is not agree. Therefore, the FIR may be quashed against the petitioner.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner in the FIR that the petitioner harassed the complainant mentally and physically and also demanded dowry from her.

I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the FIR and material on record.

4. The respondent complainant in the FIR has specifically stated that marriage between complainant and petitioner took place on 05.02.2017 and out of wedlock, one son was born. After some time of marriage, the petitioner started harassing the complainant for bringing less dowry. The petitioner also pressurized the complainant for abortion and therefore, she went to her paternal home where she gave birth to her son. Even after birth of son, there was no change in the behaviour of the petitioner with the complainant and on 12.09.2018, she was ousted from matrimonial home and thereafter she went to her uncle’s house. When the petitioner denied to keep the complainant with her, she filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. Some relatives and reputed persons of the society tried to reconcile the issue between the petitioner and the complainant but due to adamancy of the petitioner, the conciliation did not work and the complainant is compelled to live at her uncle’s house. The complainant demanded her Stridhan from the petitioner, but he denied for the same. Thus, upon perusal of FIR, specific allegation has been levelled against the present petitioner, therefore, at the stage of investigation, no case for quashing of FIR is made out in this case.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal & Ors. : 1992 Suppl. (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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document