The High Court must exercise powers under Section 482 sparingly, only where no prima facie case exists against the accused.

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.II – 3186 of 2017 registered with Chandkheda Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 of the IPC, u/s 184, 177, 134(b) of the MV Act as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.

2. Seeking quashment of the FIR, Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not driving the car and his driver was driving the car. He would further submit that the complainant has lodged the FIR keeping past grudge and animosity with the petitioner. He would further submit that due to the grudge and animosity, the petitioner was attacked by one Vyomesh Solanki, Chairman of the Society where the petitioner is residing and the petitioner has received injury for which, she has taken treatment at Zydus Hospital, Ahmedabad. He would further submit that the impugned FIR is a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner against the complainant. Upon such submission, he prays to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR.

3. Though served, none remained present for the private respondent.

4. Learned APP having placed on record report of the PSI, Chandkheda Police Station would submit that the petitioner is not cooperating with the police for carrying out investigation smoothly. He would further submit that one eye witness has deposited that the petitioner’s car dashed with the complainant and thereby, the complainant received injuries. He would further submit that the eye witness also deposed that the car of the petitioner was driven rashly and negligently. He would further submit that since the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation, this Court vide order dated 25.7.2019 directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation. Upon above submissions, learned APP would submit that since the conduct of the petitioner is not good since the inception and as per the deposition of the eye witness, the car of the petitioner was driven rashly and negligently and since draft charge sheet is filed, this Court may not exercise inherent power u/s 482 of the Code to quash the FIR at this juncture. Upon such submission, learned APP prays to dismiss the petition.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, what appears that petitioner is not cooperating with the police for carrying out investigation smoothly. Further, one eye witness has deposited that the petitioner’s car dashed with the complainant and thereby, the complainant received injuries. The eye witness also deposed that the car of the petitioner was driven rashly and negligently. What further appears that since the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation, this Court vide order dated 25.7.2019 directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation. Thus, it appears that the conduct of the petitioner is not good since the inception and as per the deposition of the eye witness, the car of the petitioner was driven rashly and negligently.

6. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Ltd. v/ s. State of Uttar Pradesh [2020 SCC Online SC 958], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that exercise of power under section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and cannot be used to thwart the investigation. The relevant para reads as under :-

"41. It is needless to point out that ever since the decision of the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed AIR 1945 PC 18, the law is well settled that Courts would not thwart any investigation. It is only i