Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ajeet Kumar vs State Of H.P. And Others on 6 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 1246 of 2023
.
Reserved on: 6.8.2024
Date of Decision: 6.9.2024.
Ajeet Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others
Coram
r to ...Respondents
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : M/s R.L. Chaudhary and H.S. Sidhu,
Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondents No.1 to
3/State.
None for respondents No.4 and 5.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
quashing of FIR No. 134 of 2022, dated 22.12.2022 for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 354-B,
504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 8 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS
2
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )
Act) at Police Station Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. and the
consequent proceedings arising out of the same.
.
2. It has been asserted that the informant made a
complaint to the police stating that he had left home to attend
his job, his wife was doing the work under MGNREGA and his
daughter (the victim) was alone at the home. The petitioner
entered the informant’s house in a drunken condition. He
assaulted the victim, tore her clothes and used vulgar language
in her presence. The police registered the FIR and filed the
charge sheet after completion of the investigation. The
petitioner was medically examined and he was found to be
intoxicated. Samples were sent to the Forensic Science
Laboratory for analysis. No semen or blood stains were found on
the samples. No injuries were found on the victim’s body. This
shows that the petitioner was falsely implicated. The mobile
phone of the petitioner was lost. It was found in the hands of the
victim. The petitioner snatched his mobile phone from the
victim and no other incident had taken place. Civil disputes are
pending between the parties. A false FIR was lodged against the
petitioner to settle the score. The allegations in the FIR are not
corroborated by the report of the FSL. Therefore, it was prayed
::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS
3
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )
that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be ordered to be
quashed.
.
3. The petition is opposed by respondents No.1 to
3/State by filing a reply denying the contents of the petition. It
was asserted that the informant had gone to his duty at Baroti
and his wife went to work under MGNREGA. The victim was
alone in her home. She called the informant at 3.30 PM and
informed him that the petitioner had entered her house, acted
indecently with her, tore her clothes, abused her and threatened
to kill her. The informant returned to his home. The persons
working under MGNREGA also saw the petitioner roaming near
the informant’s house. The police registered the FIR and
conducted the investigation. The petitioner had committed the
heinous offence against the minor in a state of intoxication. The
victim supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. As per the date of birth certificate,
the victim was born on 9.9.2005. She was aged 17 years, three
months and 12 days on the date of the incident. As per the report
of analysis, 92.19 mg per cent alcohol was found in the
petitioner’s blood. There is sufficient material on record to
connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. The
::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS
4
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )
police filed a charge sheet which is pending before the Court.
Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
.
4. No separate reply was filed on behalf of the
informant and the victim.
5. I have heard M/s R.L. Chaudhary and H.S. Sidhu,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Ayushi Negi, learned
6. Mr. R.L.
r to
Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3/State.
Chaudhary, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that a false FIR was lodged against the
petitioner. The petitioner is innocent and he has not committed
any crime. A civil litigation is pending against the petitioner and
a false case was filed to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner.
Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the
FIR be ordered to be quashed. He relied upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Gaba and others Vs. State of
Utter Pradesh and another, Cr. A. No. 2328 of 2022, decided on
2.1.2023 in support of his submission.
7. Ms. Ayushi Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General
for respondents No.1 to 3/State submitted that the allegations in
the FIR constitute the commission of cognizable offence. The
::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS
5
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )
presence of the petitioner on the spot is corroborated by the
statements of the workers working under MGNREGA. The mere
.
pendency of the civil litigation is not sufficient to infer that a
false FIR was lodged by the informant. Therefore, she prayed
that the present petition be dismissed.
8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
9. The parameters for exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in A.M. Mohan v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339, wherein it
was observed: –
“9. The law with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and
criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized bythis Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC
India Limited (2006) 6 SCC 736: 2006 INSC 452 after
considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite torefer to the following observations of this Court in the said
case, which read thus:
“12. The principles relating to the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash complaints and criminal
proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this
Court in several decisions. To mention a few–
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692: 1988 SCC (Cri)
234], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC
335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS
6
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194: 1995 SCC (Cri)
1059], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro
Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591: 1996 SCC (Cri)
1045], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8.
SCC 164: 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of
Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259: 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl
Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000)3 SCC 269: 2000 SCC (Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad
Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168: 2000 SCC (Cri)
786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645: 2002
SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical WorksLtd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122: 2005
SCC (Cri) 283]. The principles, relevant to our purpose
are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the
allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be
examined as a whole, but without examining the
merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed
inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material
nor an assessment of the reliability or
genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is
warranted while examining prayer for quashing a
complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a
clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the
criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated
with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or
to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd
and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be
used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution.
The power should be used sparingly and with
abundant caution.
::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS
7
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim
reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence
alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid
in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few
.
ingredients have not been stated in detail, the
proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of
the complaint is warranted only where the
complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which
are necessary for making out the offence.
(v.) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a
civil wrong; (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a
civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A
commercial transaction or a contractual dispute,
apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking
remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal
offence. As the nature and scope of a civil
proceeding are different from a criminal
proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint
relates to a commercial transaction or breach of
contract, for which a civil remedy is available or
has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash
the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal
offence or not.”
10. Similar is the judgment in Maneesha Yadav v. State of
U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643, wherein it was held: –
“12. We may gainfully refer to the following observations
of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1990 INSC 363:
“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::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS
8
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )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 channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustivelist 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 ifthey 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 investigationby police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of theCode.
(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 acase against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation
is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS
9
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or
the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution andcontinuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
r ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due toprivate and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect
that the power of quashing a criminalproceeding should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that too in the
rarest of rare cases; that the court will not bejustified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of theallegations made in the FIR or the complaint
and that the extraordinary or inherent powers
do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on thecourt to act according to its whim or caprice.”
11. The FIR reads that the victim was alone in her house.
She informed the informant telephonically that the petitioner
visited her home. He acted indecently with her, tore her clothes,
abused and threatened her. These allegations show the
commission of cognizable offences. These allegations are also
::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS
10
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )
supported by the statements of the workers working under
MGNREGA.
.
12. Heavy reliance was placed upon the fact that a civil
suit is pending between the informant’s father and the
petitioner’s father. This will not assist the petitioner because the
enmity is a double-edged weapon: while it furnishes the motive
for false implication, it also furnishes a motive for the
commission of a crime. Thus, the FIR cannot be said to be false
simply because civil litigation is pending between the fathers of
the parties.
13. Even otherwise, it is not permissible to look into the
documents annexed with the petition. The Court has to consider
the FIR and the material collected by the prosecution during the
investigation to determine whether the continuation of the
proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. It
was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MCD v. Ram
Kishan Rohtagi, (1983) 1 SCC 1: 1983 SCC (Cri) 115, that the
proceedings can be quashed if on the face of the complaint and
the papers accompanying the same no offence is constituted. It
is not permissible to add or subtract anything. It was observed:
::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS
11
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )
“10. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings
against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed
only if on the face of the complaint or the papers
accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In.
other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the
complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting
anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court
will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of
its powers under Section 482 of the present Code.”
14. Madras High Court also held in Ganga Bai v. Shriram,
1990 SCC OnLine MP 213: ILR 1992 MP 964: 1991 Cri LJ 2018, that
the fresh evidence is not permissible or desirable in the
proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It was observed:
“Proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be
allowed to be converted into a full-dressed trial. Shri
Maheshwari filed a photostate copy of an order dated28.7.1983, passed in Criminal Case No. 1005 of 1977, to
which the present petitioner was not a party. Fresh
evidence at this stage is neither permissible nor desirable. Therespondent by filing this document is virtually introducing
additional evidence, which is not the object of Section 482,Cr.P.C.”
15. Andhra Pradesh High Court also took a similar view
in Bharat Metal Box Company Limited, Hyderabad and Others vs. G.
K. Strips Private Limited and another, 2004 STPL 43 AP, and held:
“9. This Court can only look into the complaint and the
documents filed along with it and the sworn statements
of the witnesses if any recorded. While judging the
correctness of the proceedings, it cannot look into the
documents, which are not filed before the lower Court.
Section 482 Cr.PC debars the Court to look into fresh::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS
12
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )documents, in view of the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa
and another, 2002 (1) Supreme 192. The relevant portion of
the said judgment reads as follows:
.
“The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it
appears that on consideration of the allegations, in
the light of the statement made on oath of thecomplainant that the ingredients of the offence or
offences are disclosed and there is no material to
show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or
vexatious, in that event there would be nojustification for interference by the High Court.
When information is lodged at the Police Station
and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of
the informant would be of secondary importance. Itis the material collected during the investigation
and evidence led in Court, which decides the fate of
the accused person. The allegations of mala fides
against the informant are of no consequence and
cannot by itself be the basis for quashing theproceedings”.
16. A similar view was taken in Mahendra K.C. v. State of
Karnataka, (2022) 2 SCC 129: (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 401 wherein it was
observed on page 142:
“16. … the test to be applied is whether the allegations in
the complaint as they stand, without adding or detracting
from the complaint, prima facie establish the ingredients
of the offence alleged. At this stage, the High Court
cannot test the veracity of the allegations nor for that
matter can it proceed in the manner that a judge
conducting a trial would, on the basis of the evidence
collected during the course of the trial.”
::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS
13
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )
17. This position was reiterated in Supriya Jain v. State of
Haryana, (2023) 7 SCC 711: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765wherein it was
.
held:
13. All these documents which the petitioner seeks to rely
on, if genuine, could be helpful for her defence at the trial
but the same are not material at the stage of deciding
whether quashing as prayed for by her before the High
Court was warranted or not. We, therefore, see no reasonto place any reliance on these three documents.
18. A similar view was taken in Iveco Magirus
Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya, (2024) 2
SCC 86:2023 SCC OnLine SC 1258 wherein it was observed:
“63. Adverting to the aspect of the exercise of jurisdiction
by the High Courts under Section 482CrPC, in a casewhere the offence of defamation is claimed by the accused
to have not been committed based on any of the
Exceptions and a prayer for quashing is made, the lawseems to be well settled that the High Courts can go no
further and enlarge the scope of inquiry if the accused seeksto rely on materials which were not there before the
Magistrate. This is based on the simple proposition that whatthe Magistrate could not do, the High Courts may not do. We
may not be understood to undermine the High Courts’
powers saved by Section 482CrPC; such powers are always
available to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real
and substantial justice for the administration of which
alone the High Courts exist. However, the tests laid down
for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings arising from
a police report by the High Courts in the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC not being
substantially different from the tests laid down for
quashing a process issued under Section 204 read with::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS
14
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )Section 200, the High Courts on recording due
satisfaction are empowered to interfere if on a reading of
the complaint, the substance of statements on oath of the
complainant and the witness, if any, and documentary.
evidence as produced, no offence is made out and that
proceedings, if allowed to continue, would amount to an
abuse of the legal process. This too, would beimpermissible if the justice of a given case does not
overwhelmingly so demand.” (Emphasis supplied).
19. Thus, the Court cannot look into the document
annexed to the petition and hold that the FIR is the result of
enmity. r
20. It was submitted that the report of the FSL does not
show the presence of any semen. This submission will not assist
the petitioner. First, no allegations of penetrative sexual assault
were made against the petitioner and the absence of the semen
will not falsify such allegations. Secondly, the sufficiency of the
evidence is not to be seen at this stage. It was laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Maroti, (2023)
4 SCC 298: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1503 that the High Court
exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot
examine the truthfulness, sufficiency and admissibility of the
evidence. It was observed:
“21. If FIR and the materials collected disclose a
cognizable offence and the final report filed under Section::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS
15
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )173(2)CrPC on completion of investigation based on it
would reveal that the ingredients constitute an offence
under the POCSO Act and a prima facie case against the
persons named therein as accused, the truthfulness,.
sufficiency or admissibility of the evidence are not
matters falling within the purview of exercise of power
under Section 482CrPC and undoubtedly they are mattersto be done by the trial court at the time of trial. This
position is evident from the decisions referred to supra.
22. In the decision in M.L. Bhatt v. M.K. Pandita [M.L.
Bhatt v. M.K. Pandita, (2023) 12 SCC 821: 2002 SCC OnLineSC 1300: JT (2002) 3 SC 89], this Court held that while
considering the question of quashing of FIR the High
Court would not be entitled to appreciate by way of sifting
the materials collected in course of investigationincluding the statements recorded under Section 161CrPC.
23. In the decision in Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab [Rajeev
Kourav v. Baisahab, (2020) 3 SCC 317: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri)
51], a two-judge Bench of this Court dealt with thequestion as to the matters that could be considered by the
High Court in quashment proceedings under Section
482CrPC. It was held therein that statements of witnessesrecorded under Section 161CrPC being wholly
inadmissible in evidence could not be taken intoconsideration by the Court while adjudicating a petition
filed under Section 482CrPC. In that case, this Court took
note of the fact that the High Court was aware that one ofthe witnesses mentioned that the deceased victim had
informed him about the harassment by the accused,
which she was not able to bear and hence wanted to
commit suicide. Finding that the conclusion of the High
Court to quash the criminal proceedings, in that case, was
based on its assessment of the statements recorded under
Section 161CrPC, it was held that statements thereunder,
being wholly inadmissible in evidence could not have
been taken into consideration by the Court while
adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482CrPC. It
was also held that the High Court committed an error in::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS
16
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )quashing the proceedings by assessing the statements
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.”
21. It was submitted that the allegations in the FIR are
.
false. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka
Jaiswal vs. State of Jharkhand, 2024 INSC 357: 2024 SCC OnLine SC
685 that the Court exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot conduct a mini-trial or enter into
an appreciation of an evidence of a particular case. It was
observed: –
“13. We say so for reasons more than one. This Court in
catena of Judgments has consistently held that at the
time of examining the prayer for quashing of the
criminal proceedings, the court exercising extra-
ordinary jurisdiction can neither undertake to conduct a
mini-trial nor enter into appreciation of evidence of a
particular case. The correctness or otherwise of theallegations made in the complaint cannot be examined
on the touchstone of the probable defence that theaccused may raise to stave off the prosecution and any
such misadventure by the Courts resulting in
proceedings being quashed would be set aside. This Courtin the case of Akhil Sharda 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 held to
the following effect:
“28. Having gone through the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court by which the High
Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in the
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., it
appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a
mini-trial, which as such is not permissible at this
stage and while deciding the application under
Section 482 Cr. P.C. As observed and held by this Court
in a catena of decisions no mini-trial can be conducted::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS
17
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )by the High Court in the exercise of powers under
Section 482 Cr. P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of
deciding the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the
High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of.
the particular case being considered.”
22. A similar view was taken in Maneesha Yadav’s case
(supra), wherein it was held that: –
“13. As has already been observed hereinabove, the Court
would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as tothe reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the stage
of quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. However, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint,
if taken at its face value, must disclose the commission ofan offence and make out a case against the accused. At the
cost of repetition, in the present case, the allegations
made in the FIR/complaint even if taken at its face value,do not disclose the commission of an offence or make out
a case against the accused. We are of the considered view
that the present case would fall under Category-3 of thecategories enumerated by this Court in the case of Bhajan
Lal (supra).
14. We may gainfully refer to the observations of this
Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT ofDelhi), Department of Home (2019) 11 SCC 706: 2018 INSC
1060:
“14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of
the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once
the charge sheet is filed, the petition for quashing of
FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this
submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court
in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [Joseph Salvaraj
A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri)
23]. In Joseph Salvaraj A. [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of
Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS
18
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )Court while deciding the question of whether the High
Court could entertain the Section 482 petition for
quashing of FIR when the charge-sheet was filed by.
the police during the pendency of the Section 482
petition, observed : (SCC p. 63, para 16)
“16. Thus, the general conspectus of the various
sections under which the appellant is being chargedand is to be prosecuted would show that the same
are not made out even prima facie from the
complainant’s FIR. Even if the charge sheet had
been filed, the learned Single Judge [Joesph SaivarajA. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365] could
have still examined whether the offences alleged to
have been committed by the appellant were primafacie made out from the complainant’s FIR, charge-
sheet, documents, etc. or not.”
23. Thus, it is not permissible for this Court to conduct a
Trial to determine the truthfulness and falsity of the allegations
in the F.I.R.
24. The challan has been filed before the learned Trial
Court and the learned Trial Court is seized of the matter. It was
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Iqbal v. State of U.P.,
(2023) 8 SCC 734: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 949 that when the charge
sheet has been filed, learned Trial Court should be left to
appreciate the same. It was observed:
“At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that the
investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is
ready to be filed. Although the allegations levelled in the
FIR do not inspire any confidence particularly in the::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS
19
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7999 )absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged
offences, we are of the view that the appellants should
prefer a discharge application before the trial court under
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We.
say so because even according to the State, the
investigation is over and the charge sheet is ready to be
filed before the competent court. In such circumstances,the trial court should be allowed to look into the materials
which the investigating officer might have collected
forming part of the charge sheet. If any such discharge
application is filed, the trial court shall look into thematerials and take a call whether any discharge case is
made out or not.”
25. Therefore, there is no reason to exercise the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the
present case and the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage.
26. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same
is dismissed.
27. The observation made here-in-above shall remain
confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing,
whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
6th September, 2024
(Chander)
::: Downloaded on – 06/09/2024 20:38:49 :::CIS