Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
KAMLESH SHARMA
RITA WILSON - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - Respondent
Cr. M.P. (Main) No 32 of 1991
Decided On : 03/04/1991
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 156, 157 - QUASHING OF FIR - JURISDICTION - COURT'S POWER TO QUASH FIR AT INVESTIGATION STAGE - CONDITIONS - WRONGFUL RESTRAINT - SECTION 339, 341 IPC - INTERPRETATION - MAIN GATE AND DOOR ALONGWITH ITS CHAIN NOT CASE PROPERTY - JUDICIAL WISDOM.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the Principal of Auckland House School, Simla, challenged an FIR lodged against her by the complainant, a Judicial Magistrate, alleging wrongful restraint by locking the main gate of the school, preventing him from parking his car inside the school premises. The complainant's wife was allotted residential accommodation in the school premises and the complainant was permitted to park his car in the junior school premises as a matter of courtesy. However, he insisted on parking his car in the senior school premises, which was not permitted as per the school norms.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence and that the police officer had no reasonable suspicion of the commission of an offence to initiate an investigation. The court further held that the main gate and the door along with its chain could not be considered as case property and that the order to take them into custody was not passed with judicial wisdom.
Issues: 1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to quash an FIR at the investigation stage? 2. Whether the facts and circumstances of the case warrant the exercise of such power? 3. Whether the FIR discloses any cognizable offence? 4. Whether the main gate and the door along with its chain can be considered as case property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court has jurisdiction to quash an FIR at the investigation stage if the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence or if the continuation of the investigation would amount to an abuse of power by the police. 2. The facts and circumstances of the case, including the absence of any cognizable offence and the mala fide intention of the complainant, warrant the exercise of such power. 3. The FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence as the complainant was not restrained from using the passage leading to the school premises and the obstruction caused for parking his car at a particular place does not amount to wrongful restraint under sections 339 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The main gate and the door along with its chain cannot be considered as case property as they are not related to the alleged offence and their seizure would not aid in the investigation.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the FIR and the order to take the main gate and the door into custody were quashed.
Kamlesh Sharma, J.—In this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged F. I. R. No. 21 of 1991, dated 24-1-1991, registered at police station Saddar Simla and the order dated 28-1-1991 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Simla The petitioner is the Principal of Auckland Honse School Simla where education is imparted to girls. This school is day school as well as boarding school
2. The FIR. was lodged by one George who is presently working as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. As stated in the F.I.R. the wife of the complainant Mrs. Amita George is working as teacher in the school since June 1986. She has been allotted residential accommodation in the school premises. The complainant was residing with his wife till February, 1990 when he was posted outside Simla. Since then he has been visiting his wife in the school premises off and on. He has given two incidents in his complaint, Annexure A-2 to the reply-affidavit of the State of Himachal Pradesh, which led him to lodge F.I.R. The first incident is of 24-12-1990) when the main gate of the school was got locked by the petitioner At that time the personal car of the complainant was parked in the school premises He had to take police help to get his car out of the school premises The second incident is of 22-1-1991 when he could not get ingress to the school premises with his car, as the petitioner had got the main gate of the school locked With the result he had to park his car on the road itself near the main gate of the school. According to him this had exposed him to security risk as his car was parked on the road unattended and any explosive substance could be planted in it.
3. After registering the F. I R., the investigation officer one Shri Rajinder Singh Head Constable, proceeded with the investigation. Considering the main gate of the school alongwith the lock and chain put on it as the case property and necessary for completing the investigation, he moved the Illaqa Magistrate for necessary orders. His application was infact taken up by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, by assignment, as stated by him in his order dated 18-1-1991, which is as under:— "Application received by assignment. This is an application filed by the I.O. for seeking permission to take the gate alongwith lock and chain into possession. Heard. Perused. The gate in question is stated to be locked on the spot. The Principal of the school who is in possession of key of the lock in question, is stated to have refused to open the lock The gate, lock and chain in question are allegedly required to be taken into possession to complete the investigation of the case. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Gate and lock in question alongwith chain are allowed to be taken into custody by the police in accordance with rules for the completion of investigation of the case. However, Sh. Rajinder Singh, I O. is directed to make every possible effort to open the lock by obtaining key from the person who is in possession of the key and if key is not handed over, then, lock in question is allowed to be taken into custody by breaking it open. The application is decided accordingly and be sent back to the Court of concerned Illaqa Judicial Magistrate. Announced in the open Court this 28th day of January, 1991.
4. The facts emerging from the complaint, the police file and the pleadings of the parties in the present petition are as under. Admittedly, the wife of the complainant has been allotted residential accommodation in the school premises from July 1986, where the complainant resides along with his wife and children during his stay at Simla. From the Service Rules for the Employees of the Auckland House School, Simla, especially Rule 18 (iv), placed on record as Annexure PA to the petition it is clear that the wife of the complainant is only a licensee in the residential accommodation, which has been allotted to her to facili
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
