Point of Law: Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on court.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.254/2019, dated 04.11.2019, registered against him under Sections 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Boileauganj, Shimla West, District Shimla.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case record.

3. The Case:-

The aforesaid FIR has been registered at the instance of respondent No.2-Smt. Jamna Devi. Her allegations in the FIR were that on 04.11.2019 at around 2:15 pm, while she was tending her flower pots, the petitioner came to the spot. He had come to that spot where he had constructed a store. The said store was constructed by him on her land. On reaching the spot, the petitioner attacked her with bricks and stones. He also held her by her throat. The land over which he had constructed the store had been demarcated five times previously. In all the demarcation reports, the store was found to have been constructed by him over her land. For the past two years, she had been repeatedly requesting the authorities for removal of this store from her land. Petitioner had attacked her in past as well. She had not made any police complaint about the previous incident. Further complaint was that the petitioner had threatened to do away with her life as well as lives of her children.

The police investigated the matter. The report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) was presented. In this report, mention was made that the complainant/respondent No.2 was requested to undergo medical examination in view of her allegations of having been beaten by the petitioner with bricks and stones, however, she refused to undertake the medical examination. It is also recorded in the police report that demarcation of the land in question was got carried out by the police personnel from the Revenue Department. In the said demarcation, the disputed land was found to be belonging to the complainant.

4. Submissions:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case falls under the parameters for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of the FIR, prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 1992 Supp SCC 335 (State of Haryana and others Versus Bhajan Lal and others). Following paragraph from the judgment was pressed into service:-

“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 channelized 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 F.I.R. 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 investigati