Point of Law: Inheritance power of High Court - Scope of section 482 Cr.P.C. Court should refrain from making prima-facie decision at interlocutory stage when entire facts of case are incomplete, hazy and more so, when material evidence is yet to be collected and issues involved could not be seen in their true perspective.

JUDGMENT :

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY, J.

1. This petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR No. 46/2012 pending before in Women Police Station Rambagh.

2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that the SSP Jammu received a complaint from one lady namely Preeti Sharma who had married with some Rajesh Qazi in the year 2005 under Hindu Religion. It is submitted that the complainant Preeti Sharma further stated that her son namely Anugrah aged one year and two months has been taken forcibly by husband and sister in law namely Rekha Wangnoo. It is submitted that on the instructions of SSP Jammu, the petitioner called the husband of the complainant Rajesh Qazi but his cell phone was switched off and the petitioner called sister in law of the complainant namely Rekha Wangnoo. It is submitted by the petitioner that he talked to sister in-law of the complainant in presence of SSP jammu and she also replied every query. It is submitted that after some time, the petitioner came to know that sister in law of complainant namely Rekha Wangnoo had lodged an FIR No. 46/2012 under section 419, 506 and 509 RPC of which the petitioner is aggrieved and challenges the same on the grounds detailed out in the petition.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted the objections wherein it is stated that the investigation is underway, therefore, seeks dismissal of the petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stoutly argued and in support of his arguments referred to and relied upon the citations 2008 (2) JKJ 519 (HC): 2013 (2) JKJ 188 (HC): 2021 (2) BLJ 275.

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents argued in tone with the objections filed and submitted that the investigation is yet to complete, and challan is yet to be filed in the competent court of jurisdiction, therefore, seeks dismissal of the petition.

6. Since the quashment of FIR pending in the aforesaid police station is concerned, it is profitable that before going to merits of the case, the question is as to whether the FIR pending before the police concerned can be quashed in 561-A Cr.P.C. proceedings filed in this Court. The answer has to be in the negative, for the remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked/pressed into service only in the following circumstances:

“(i) to pass orders in order to give effect to an order passed under Cr.P.C.

(ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court.

(iii) to secure the ends of justice.

(iv) to prevent miscarriage of justice.”

7. Apex Court also held that power is to be exercised cautiously, carefully and sparingly and Court has not to function as a Court of appeal or revision. It has also laid down the parameters and guidelines in cases titled as K.L.E. Society and Others vs. Siddalingesh, 2008 AIR SCW 1993, A.P. vs. Bojjoori Kanthaiah, 2008 AIR SCW 7860 and Reshma Bano vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 AIR SCW 1998.

8. Apex Court in AIR 2004 SC 3967, AIR 1972 SC 484, AIR 1974 SC 1446, AIR 1977 SC 2229, AIR 1989 SC 01, has laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce Para 10, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 19 out of the judgment titled as Som Mittal vs. Govt. of Karnataka, 2008 AIR SCW 1003 herein:

“10. In a catena of decisions this Court has deprecated the interference by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code in a routine manner. It has been consistently held that the power under Section 482 must be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. Exercise of inherent power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not the rule but it is an exception. The exception is applied only when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to linger when prima-facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. In other words, the inherent