Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, J.
Hemant Singh S/o Prabhu Singh Rajawat – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4436 of 2024
Decided on : 23-07-2024
QUASHING - FIR - The court addressed the quashing of an FIR alleging offences under IPC and the Information Technology Act. It emphasized the need for a thorough investigation before quashing, stating that self-serving affidavits are insufficient. The court highlighted the authority of a superior officer under Section 36 of the Cr.P.C. to conduct inquiries and manage the investigation process, influencing its decision to not quash the FIR at this preliminary stage.
Fact of the Case:
Nandalal Teli left his mobile phone unattended, which was later claimed to have been taken by Bherulal. After retrieving the phone, Nandalal received defamatory messages from Accused No.4, leading to the registration of an FIR. The petitioners claimed false implication in the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR should not be quashed at this preliminary stage based solely on the petitioners' claims. It noted that the investigation was in its early stages and that the petitioners could seek relief through a superior officer under the Cr.P.C.
Issues: Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the petitioners' claims of false implication and misuse of police powers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that quashing an FIR requires more than self-serving affidavits and that the proper procedure involves allowing a superior officer to conduct initial inquiries before any decision on quashing is made.
Final Decision: The petition for quashing the FIR was disposed of, allowing the investigation to continue and stating that the petitioners could seek relief through a superior officer.
ORDER :
ARUN MONGA, J.
1. Quashing of an FIR No.101/2024 dated 07.06.2024 for alleged offences under Sections 500, 120-B IPC and Sections 66 & 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, at Police Station Kelwa, District Rajsamand is sought herein.
2. Facts, as pleaded, leading to filing of the instant petition are that Nandalal Teli left his ULTRA-24 mobile phone unattended at a shop without a screen lock. After realizing the phone was missing 15-20 minutes later, Nandalal returned to the shop, but it was closed. He then went to the house of Accused No.1 to inquire about the phone. Accused No.1 stated that he would check the CCTV footage and asked Nandalal to return the next day. The following day, Accused No.1 informed Nandalal over the phone that the device had been taken by Bherulal (Accused No.2). Bherulal claimed that the phone had been left in his car, which had been taken to the mines by his brother, but assured it would be returned by the evening. On May 19, 2024, Bherulal left the phone at Chauhan Filling Station, where Vikas informed Nandalal, and his son Subhash retrieved it. The phone was off and contained a Jio SIM card. On May 28, 2024, Accused No.4 sent defamatory WhatsApp messages and videos to Nandalal's phone, including false and harmful content. FIR was registered. Petitioners claim they have been falsely implicated. Hence the petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.
5. While learned counsel for the petitioners would empathically argue that the FIR in question ought to be quashed as the same is in complete misuse of the police powers only to put collateral pressure on the petitioners to not press the charges against the respondent No.2 qua the JCB, which has been illegally taken away from him.
5.1. He further contends that the allegations in the FIR are completely fictitious and concocted and merely a counter blast to an earlier FIR No.0097, dated 01.06.2024 registered against the complainant under Section 379 IPC.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor would argue that the investigation is at a very initial stage and the petitioners have nothing to be fearful of and in case, in course of investigation it unravels that no offences are having committed by the petitioners, a negative final report shall be filed in due course.
7. Having heard the rival contentions, at this preliminary stage, it would not appropriate for this Court to entertain a petition for quashing the FIR based merely on self serving affidavits.
8. Even otherwise, I am of the view that the petitioners should have first approached a superior officer under Section 36 of the Cr.P.C. The superior officer, after conducting initial inquiries, has the authority to either terminate the proceedings or direct the earlier Investigating Officer, who is already handling the matter based on the petitioners' complaint, to continue investigating the FIR in question. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition stands disposed of.
9. As regards the apprehension of the petitioners of being arrested, the same is completely unfounded, as the offences alleged against them are bailable. Needless to say, in case they are summoned by the Investigating Officer, they shall be admitted to bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
The return of stolen property and the complainant's willingness to pursue a case are not sufficient grounds for quashing an FIR. The allegations must be not only absurd but inherently improbable to i....
Quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not warranted when allegations are not inherently improbable, even if the complainant is unwilling to proceed.
The absence of call records undermines the credibility of an FIR for criminal intimidation, indicating it may be filed with malicious intent.
The lack of substantial evidence linking the accused to the alleged crime is grounds for quashing the FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, and the courts have a limited jurisdiction to consider whether there is sufficient material to proceed further against the accused.
Quashing of FIR should be an exception and rarity, and the court cannot inquire into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the FIR.
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
