IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Arun Monga, J.
Gordhan Lal Soni S/o Ramniwas Soni and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP and ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7477/2024
Decided On : 24-10-2024
(A) BNSS - Section 175 - Judicial Magistrates must exercise caution in directing police to register FIRs, ensuring a prima facie case exists. The court emphasized the need for judicial scrutiny to prevent misuse of the criminal justice system in familial disputes. (Paras 10.1, 12.1, 18.2)
(B) FIR - Allegations of fraud and conspiracy in familial disputes must be substantiated with credible evidence. The court found the allegations to be civil in nature, lacking the ingredients of criminal offences. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged that her son-in-law and daughter conspired to defraud her of money and valuables, leading to the registration of an FIR. The court found the FIR to be an abuse of process of law.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the FIR, stating that the allegations did not constitute criminal offences and highlighted the need for careful judicial oversight in family disputes.
Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations constituted a criminal offence and the proper application of judicial mind by the Magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the FIR was registered without proper judicial scrutiny, emphasizing the importance of verifying the truthfulness of allegations in familial disputes.
Result: FIR quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Arun Monga, J.
1. The case in hand illustrates the fallacious practice often followed by the Judicial Magistrates in directing police officials to register FIRs, invoking their power under section 175 of the BNSS [corresponding with section 156 of the Cr.P.C.], in a mechanical manner and without due application of judicial mind, even if the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out. Such perfunctory approach, in turn, puts the civil liberties of the accused persons at risk, forcing them to seek bail as suspects—either anticipatory, alternatively, regular—if they have been arrested following the registration of the FIR and, if charge sheet already filed, then as an undertrial, face the harassment, humility and agony of trial in Courts.
2. Petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 are son-in-law, daughter and grand-daughter (being the daughter of petitioners No. 1 and 2), respectively of the complainant/respondent No.2. They seek quashing of FIR No. 266 dated 27.09.2024, PS Kotegate, Bikaner registered against them for alleged offences under Sections 420/406/120B IPC and consequential proceedings.
FACTS
3. Factual narrative as per translated version of the impugned FIR is as below :-
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
In the court of Chief Judicial Magistrat, Bikaner.
Kamla Devi, wife of late Shyam Sunder caste Soni, age 72 years, resident of K.G. Complex, behind Durga Mata Temple, Bikaner. - Complainant
versus
1. Gordhan Lal Soni, son of RamniwasSoni, resident of ChhotiKhatu, Barla Bazaar, District Nagaur.
2. Shobha Devi, wife of Gordhan Lal Soni, resident of ChhotiKhatu, Barla Bazaar, District Nagaur.
3. Lalita Soni daughter of Gordhan Lal Soni resident of ChhotiKhatu, Badla Bazar, District Nagaur.
Accused
Complaint under section 175 (3) BNSS Section 61, 316 (2), 318 (4) BNS.
Sir,
The complaint is being presented as below :-
1. I, the complainant, Kamla Devi wife of late Shyamsundar caste Soni, age 70 years, resident behind K.G. Complex, behind Durga Mata Temple, Bikaner, am a widow. I have two sons and four daughters.
2. One of my sons Bhavani died in an accident and my daughter Shobha was married to Gordhan Lal Soni of ChhotiKhatu who is my eldest son-in-law and the family had placed trust in Shobha and her husband.
3. In the past the accused persons had defrauded me, which caused a family rift. After my husband’s demise, they sought forgiveness, seemingly to regain my trust. However, there was a big conspiracy behind their settlement i.e. their intention to usurp my property and my wealth (money, gold, silver). Same gradually became apparent to me and I got to know the real faces of these two.
4. That after the death of my husband and son Bhavani, I was left alone. Therefore, my daughter Shobha and her husband Gordhan Lal Soni used to come to meet me. After the death of my husband and son, I was under deep shock due to which I was unable to think much.
5. That my son-in-law Gordhan Lal Soni came to Bikaner on 21.01.2021 and called me and said that he wanted to buy a camera and I should bring 1 lakh rupees to him at KEM Road. I, the complainant, reached KEM Road with one lakh rupees and made the payment for the camera for Gordhan ji. Gordhan ji then gave the camera to his son Lalit and sent him to Khatu.
6. On 21.05.2021, Gordhan ji again came to my house and asked for two lakh rupees from me for his personal need. I again gave two lakh rupees to Gordhan ji. He stayed at my house that night and left with two lakh rupees in the morning on 22.05.2021.
7. That on 21.09.2021 my daughter Shobha and son-in-law Gordhan Lal Soni along with their 5-year-old grand son came to my house, then stayed here on 22
AI
Judicial Magistrates must apply scrutiny before directing FIR registration to prevent misuse of the criminal justice system in familial disputes.
Direction for Police investigation – In family disputes triable by Magistrates, especially those involving close relatives, Magistrates should strive to nurture an environment conducive to preserving....
The duty of the Magistrate to apply judicial mind while directing the registration of FIRs, and the consequences of filing frivolous and vexatious proceedings.
A Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must exercise judicial discretion by clearly recording reasons for either initiating an investigation, rejecting the complaint, or ordering a preliminary enq....
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 175(3) of the BNSS to decide whether to register an FIR based on the application, assessing whether a cognizable offense is made out.
The court clarified that Section 175(4) of the BNSS is discretionary, not mandatory, allowing the Magistrate to independently decide on investigations without undue influence from prior orders.
The court emphasized the necessity of conducting a preliminary inquiry before proceeding with an FIR to prevent abuse of legal process in cases with potential ulterior motives.
A Magistrate can direct FIR registration even after commencing proceedings under section 202 Cr.P.C, clarifying the powers under sections 156(3) and 202.
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.