RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Smt. Anandi Eknath Shetke - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 638 of 2023
Decided On : 17-05-2023
Quashing - FIR - Cr.P.C. Section 482, IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B - The court emphasized the limited scope of quashing FIRs under Section 482, highlighting that it should only be exercised in rare cases where no prima facie case exists, thus upholding the FIR against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR for alleged fraud and forgery, claiming she was no longer a partner in the firm involved. The FIR was based on allegations of preparing forged documents to obtain money from a bank.
Finding of the Court:
The court found sufficient evidence in the case diary indicating that the petitioner was involved in preparing forged documents and obtaining money fraudulently, thus justifying the continuation of the FIR.
Issues: Whether the FIR registered against the petitioner can be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and only when no prima facie case is established, emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation.
Result: The misc. petition is dismissed, and the FIR remains in effect.
ORDER
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.0498/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Nagaur for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner was partner in the firm namely Jyotibha Trading Company but later on petitioner executed a partnership dissolution deed on 29.01.2021 and petitioner informed the bank that she is no more a partner of the said firm. It is argued that petitioner is not involved in the affairs of the firm with the Bank and she has been implicated in this case only on the basis of name being shown as partner in the Bank account of the firm. Therefore, it is prayed that the FIR may be quashed.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the case diary.
5. From the perusal of case diary, it is evident that the petitioner and her husband both prepared forged documents and by putting forged signature on the cheque, obtained money from the Bank in their account whereas, the account holder did not sign any cheque. Thus, a prima facie case of cheating and fraud is made out against the petitioner. In these circumstances, it can not be said that FIR is frivolous. Furthermore, FIR cannot be quashed.
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 Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and criminal proceedings. The Court held:
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 or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficac
Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised cautiously to prevent abuse of process and to allow legitimate prosecutions to proceed.
The power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and only in rare cases. The High Court should not give a premature decision when the entire facts are i....
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.
Court when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether allegations in FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not.
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.
High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so.
Point of Law : Extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. High Court cannot go beyond the allegations made in the F.I.R. or rely upon extraneous consideration.
The power to quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and cautiously, and only in cases where the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offense or where there is an....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.