The scope for quashing FIRs under Section 482 of CrPC is limited and requires concrete grounds showing no cognizable offences are disclosed.

ORDER :

SANDEEP TANEJA, J.

1. These criminal misc. petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’) for quashing the FIR No.67 dated 18.03.2018 registered at Police Station Bilara, Jodhpur Gramin for the offences under Sections 143 , 306, 384, 385 and 500 IPC .

2. The subject FIR reads as under :

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that filing of FIR is simply an outcome of ulterior motive with a view to create undue pressure upon the petitioners. It is further submitted that the complainant had lodged the false FIR with an intention of taking undue benefit of his father’s illness, previous medical history and old age factor. It is also submitted that no such meeting was called in the village, in which, allegedly the fine was imposed or the complainant’s father was insulted.

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that Narsingh Ram (petitioner in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1473/2018) was not present at the site, which is clear from the attendance certificate No.22 dated 24.03.2018 issued by the Principal of Government Higher Secondary School, Jhank, wherein it is stated that as per the school record, he never took leave from 18.12.2017 to 20.12.2017.

3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not fulfilled as there is no instigation on the part of the accused petitioners to commit suicide by the complainant’s father. To buttress her arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shenbagavalli & Ors. Vs. The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.4268/2024 decided on 30.04.2025) and Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No.005175/2024 decided on 10.12.2024).

4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the criminal misc. petitions and has submitted that there is no, prima facie, case in favour of petitioners to quash the impugned FIR. He further submitted that inherent powers of the High Court are required to be exercised in exceptional cases. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that after thorough investigation, offences under Sections 143 , 306, 384, 385 and 500 IPC have been found proved against the petitioners, however, charge-sheet is yet to be filed. Hence, he has prayed to reject both the criminal misc. petitions.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR and criminal proceedings.

The relevant part of the said judgment is as under :-

"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 prec