Order On Board

17/1/2023

1. The applicants have preferred this petition under Section

482 of the CrPC for quashment of FIR in Crime No.479/2022 dated 24.5.2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Korba and subsequent proceedings in Criminal Case No.2927/2022 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba for offence under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC.

2. Mr.Lavkush Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the applicants, would submit that applicant No.1 is brother-in-law (Jeth) and applicant No.2 is sister-in-law (Jethani) of complainant / respondent No.2-Smt.Shraddha Sahu @ Bhoomi, whose marriage was solemnized with Chhabilal Sahu in the month of July, 2021. He would further submit that vague and bald allegations have been made by the complainant in the FIR. The present petitioners are not living in Karainara, Police Station Urga, District Korba where the parents and brother of petitioner No.1 are living because of Government service of petitioner No.1 since 2012. Petitioner No.1 was appointed on the post of Assistant Development Extension OfÏcer and thereafter posted at Kota, District Bilaspur since 2012. As such, the petitioners were living separately from her parents and husband of the complainant. So, complaint made against the petitioners is false, mala fide and concocted and false allegation for demand of car and other articles has been made against the petitioners. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others 1. So, the learned counsel prays to allow the instant petition and quash the FIR in respect of the petitioners.

3. Per contra, Mr.Vimlesh Bajpai, learned Government Advocate for respondent No.1, would submit that in the present case, specific role of the present applicants has been mentioned in the FIR. He would further submit that the facts of the case of Kahkashan Kaushar @ Sonam (supra) are distinguishable as in the said case, earlier the complaint was filed in the year 2017 though cognizance was taken only against the husband and the said matter was later on resolved. In subsequent complaint, which was filed in the year 2019, the complainant / wife roped other family members. So, in subsequent complaint, the Court finds that only omnibus allegation of demand of car was made and no specific allegation was found, in such circumstance, relief was granted. He further submits that there is no merit in this case and and it is liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with petition.

5. It is well settled that power under Section 482 of the CrPC

1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162

as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others 2 should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. It should be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following seven categories 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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police ofÏcers 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 co