Unless a detailed specific proof against each of the accused who had participated in a particular design to do a particular thing has been established no charge under section 120-B IPC can be proved.

Headnote:Quashment - Where it is possible for the High Court to take the view that initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court and quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice, the inherent jurisdiction can or should be exercised for quashing the proceedings.
       Motive - When the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the motive assumes relevance and importance.
       Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 25 - Confessional statement made before the police is inadmissible. (Para 21)
       Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Disclosure statement - When no recovery was made following the disclosure statement, therefore no part of the statement could be proved. (Para 21)
       Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent jurisdiction - Scope of - Such power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. (Para 12)
       Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Inherent jurisdiction - Exercised of - Category of cases - Held, Where it is possible for the High Court to take the view that initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court and quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice, the inherent jurisdiction can or should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. (Para 12)
       Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 120 B - Quashing of F.I.R. - Inherent jurisdiction - The powers possessed by the High Court under section 482 Cr. P.C. are of very wide and plentitude - No hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. (Para 13)
       Evidence Act, 1872 - Motive - When the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the motive assumes relevance and importance. (Para 20)
       Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120-B - Criminal Conspiracy - Unless a detailed specific proof against each of the accused who had participated in a particular design to do a particular thing has been established, no charge under section 120 - B IPC can be proved. (Para 19)
       Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of F.I.R. - Case of blind murder - No direct evidence with regard to scene of occurrence - Nobody was named in the F.I.R. - No motive for the petitioner to hatch a conspiracy - No recovery was effected in pursuance to the disclosure statement - The chain of events and circumstances is not complete to point the finger of guilt at the accused - case is based circumstantial evidence - Petitioner has been sought to be implicated with the aid of Section 120 - B - Effect of - Held, Court is fully satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case do constitute a category where this Court must exercise its inherent powers to prevent an apparent abuse of process of law - Petition allowed. F.I.R. qua the petitioner quashed. (Para 15, 16, 18 to 22 and 23)

Judgment

1. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.17 dated 24/1/1999, under Sections 302/120-B IPC, P. S. Bawal, District rewari. The brief facts as set out in the petition are that Shri Shreo Nath was the Mahant and Guru of Gaddi Math, Asthal Bohar. Petitioner as well as one baba Azad Nath were the Chelas of Mahant Shri Shreo Nath. Mahant shri shreo Nath executed a registered Will on 24.5.1984 in favour of petitioner declaring him as successor to his Gaddi. In a civil suit filed at District courts, Karnal on 30.7.1984, Mahant Shri Shreo Nath, as per statement annexure A-6 deposed that he had appointed petitioner as his heir by performing all the ceremonies. Mahant Shri Shreo Nath expired on 7.1.1985 and petitioner was declared as successor of Mahant Shri Shreo Nath by performing Chaddar Rasam on 9.1.1985. It may be relevant to mention here that Baba Azad Nath never challenged the Mahantship of the petitioner in any Court of law nor did he challenge the Will executed by Mahant shri shreo Nath. Baba Azad Nath started residing in village Asalwas since 1984, which is at a distance of about 100 kilometres from the Math of Baba mast nath at Asthal Bohar (Rohtak ). He did not even interfere with the affairs of the Math.

2. It is further pleaded that petitioner incurred wrath of Shri Om Parkash chautala, respondent No.2 as he refused to meet his demand of paying a sum of Rs.2 crore by 10th March, 2001 and for that he had even received threatening phone calls. Respondent No.2 directed the authorities to create all sorts of hindrances in the functioning of the institutes run by the trust.

3. The petitioner received several threats to his life at the behest of respondent no.2. Petitioner submitted a complaint on 5.2.2001 to Superintendent of police, Rohtak, whereupon FIR No.42 dated 5.2.2001 under Section 387 IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar Rohtak. However, petitioners request for providing adequate security was declined. Petitioner, thereafter, submitted a representation to the District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak, who directed the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak to provide adequate security to the petitioner. Despite the aforesaid order, the State Government failed to provide any security to the petitioner. Under the directives of respondent no.2, by getting disclosure statements of hardened criminals, namely, krishan Singh, Manjit Singh and Ashok Kumar recorded in the year 2001, the petitioner was falsely implicated with the aid of Sec.120-B ipc, in the aforesaid FIR No.17 dated 24/1/1999 relating to murder of Baba azad nath by some unidentified person, which was registered on the basis of statement of one Randhir Singh, a resident of native village of Baba azad nath. According to Randhir Singh, on 24/1/1999 at about 5.00 P. M. he had gone to see Baba Azad Nath in Shiv Temple, Village Asalwas. At about 6.30 p. M. , Baba Azad Nath came out and was sitting with sewaks including Tej pal son of Ami Lal, Jaina son of Prabhata and Ombir son of Ram Pal. At that time, a person aged 25/26 year, wearing shirt and pant and muffled in black loi came there and desired to smoke sulpha, on which Baba replied that he could not offer him sulpha, but he could take meals. When he refused to take meals, Baba told him, if he does not want to take meals he could go from the front gate. Thereafter, the complainant and others started taking meals and baba went to the back side for urination. About 4-5 minutes thereafter, there was a big noise of Phataka (firework) and Baba gave a call bhajio (run ).

4. On hearing noise, complainant and others left their meals and went towards back side and found the Baba lying with his mouth downwards near the tree and bleeding from the right side of the chest. In the FIR, it further finds mention that complainant and others had doubted that the aforesaid visitor, by hiding himself in darkness, had fired at the Baba who died because of firearm shots. It is further stated that if the said p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(P&H) 651

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURTNirmal Yadav, J.Mahant Chand Nath YogiVersusState Of HaryanaCriminal Miscellaneous No. 19319M of 2005,Decided On : FEBRUARY 22, 2006

Unless a detailed specific proof against each of the accused who had participated in a particular design to do a particular thing has been established no charge under section 120-B IPC can be proved.

Cases Referred (3)

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Nirmal Yadav, J.
Mahant Chand Nath Yogi
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 19319M of 2005,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 22, 2006