The court established that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised cautiously and only when no prima facie case exists against the accused.

ORDER

1. The petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.288/2022 registered at Police Station Gangapur, District Bhilwara for the offence under Sections 147, 341, 323, 354 and 504 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier the present complainant had filed an application before the Police Station Gangapur, District Bhilwara, wherein proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. were initiated, in which statement of complainant Bali Devi was recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. In the said statement, no allegation with regard to offence under Section 354 IPC has been levelled by the respondent No.2. Counsel further submits that the petitioners are the registered owners of the agriculture land and the possession has also handed over to the petitioners. Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Vena Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan [2002 (2) WLN 628]. In these circumstances, since the FIR lodged against the petitioner being frivolous, is liable to be quashed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that as per factual report received from the concerned Police Station, after thorough investigation, Police is going to file Final Report against the petitioner No.1-Ram Lal, therefore, the present criminal misc. Petition has become infructuous to the extent of petitioner No.1-Ram Lal. So far as the petitioners No.2 to 5 are concerned, the offences have been found to be prima facie proved against them on the basis of statement of the complainant. Learned Public Prosecutor 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 even prima facie no offence is made out against the accused but in the present case from the evidence collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no case is made out against the petitioners No.2 to 5 for offence under Sections 147, 341, 323, 354 and 504 of IPC. Since the investigation is going on, therefore, the petition may kindly be rejected.

4. I have considered the arguments and perused the FIR and carefully gone through the record.

5. According to the statement of complainant Smt. Bali recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., she has specifically mentioned that petitioners Kamlesh, Mukesh, Prahlad and Manoj misbehaved with her and they also gave fist blows and torned her clothes. Thus, upon perusal of statement of complainant, since specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioners No.2 to 5, therefore, at the stage of investigation, no case for quashing of FIR is made out in this case qua the petitioners No.2 to 5.

6. 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 Section482 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 const