The power to quash FIR should be exercised sparingly, ensuring no substantial allegations are ignored.

ORDER :

1. Instant misc. petitions have been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 164/2021 registered at Police Station Surajpol, District Udaipur for offence under Sections 420 , 120B IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence alleged in the FIR and no specific role has been assigned to them. Thus, the averments made in the FIR are absolutely false and the FIR deserves to be quashed.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-complainant oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioners.

4. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the FIR as well as material available on record.

5. A specific averment has been made by the witnesses that both the petitioners along with other accused persons fraudulently took the complainant in the confidence to invest money in a project named “Pradhan Mantri Preventive Health Mission” under which it was proposed to open chain of hospitals in Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha constituencies of Rajasthan and in return, the complainant will get share of profit percentage in the hospitals and will also get a respectable special post. Believing upon them, the complainant invested huge amount in a project. But, subsequently the complainant came to know that the petitioner had committed fraud with him. In the investigation, offences under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC have been found proved by the police against the petitioners, therefore, at the initial stage of investigation, it cannot be said that a false FIR has been lodged against the petitioners. Therefore, no case for quashing of FIR is made out in this case.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. 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 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 permitte