Legally Bharat

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Ashok Kumar Rangra And Another vs State Of H.P. And Another on 16 September, 2024

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8554 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 1186 of 2023

.

Reserved on: 13.8.2024

Date of Decision: 16.9.2024.






    Ashok Kumar Rangra and another                                                ...Petitioners

                                           Versus

    State of H.P. and another


    Coram
                            r                to                                  ...Respondents

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1 No.


    For the Petitioners               :         Mr. Ashwani Pathak,                         Senior
                                                Advocate,   with     Mr.                   Ganesh
                                                Barowalia, Advocate.




    For the Respondents               :         Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate
                                                General, for respondent No.1/State.





                                                Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate, for
                                                respondent No.2/informant.





    Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioners have filed the present petition for

quashing of FIR No. 79 of 2023, dated 23.8.2023, for the

commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and

1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:02 :::CIS
2

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8554 )

506 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station

Rekong Peo, Kalpa, District Kangra, H.P.

.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present

petition are that the complainant filed an application before the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur (learned Trial Court)

under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of the FIR.

Learned Trial Court called for the report from the Station House

Officer. The complainant filed objections to the report submitted

by the police. Learned Trial Court listed the matter for recording

preliminary evidence vide order dated 19.9.2022 by treating it as

a private complaint. Statements of four witnesses were recorded

and the preliminary evidence was closed. Learned Trial Court

ordered on 8.6.2023 that there was sufficient reason to proceed

against the accused for the commission of offences punishable

under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. A

copy of the order was also sent to the Station House Officer,

Police Station, Rekong-Peo for registration of the FIR against

the accused. The police registered FIR No.79 of 2023 on

23.8.2023.

::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:02 :::CIS
3

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8554 )

3. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned

Trial Court, the petitioners have approached this Court for

.

quashing the FIR. It has been asserted that the petitioners are

innocent and have been falsely implicated. The civil dispute is

being converted into a criminal matter. The petitioners and the

informant never resided together under the same roof. The

Court had noticed that as per the opinion of the Investigating

Officer, the matter was civil; hence, a second round of

inquiry/investigation was not required. The police had

submitted a report that the dispute was civil and no criminal

case was made out against the petitioners. Therefore, it was

prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be

quashed.

4. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents.

Respondent No.1 filed a reply making preliminary submission

regarding the lack of maintainability. The contents of the

petition were denied on merits. It was asserted that the FIR was

registered as per the order passed by learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Kinnaur. The investigation is not complete and

petitioners have not joined the investigation. It was found that

the informant and her husband had resided together in

::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:02 :::CIS
4
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8554 )

Chandigarh in the house of the petitioners. The informant

thereafter resided in Noida in preparation for a post-graduate

.

course in Delhi. She got admission to PGI, Rohtak in the year

2017. Petitioners No.1 and 2 harassed the informant in the year

2015 by saying that she did not earn anything and they forced

her to visit Delhi to take coaching. As per the investigation, the

matter pertains to jewellery, money and divorce between the

parties. Petitioners intended to purchase land in Himachal

Pradesh but in view of the bar under Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy

and Land Reforms Act, the land was purchased in the name of

the complainant. The allegations made in the complaint are

corroborated by the bank statement. Therefore, it was prayed

that the present petition be dismissed.

5. Respondent No.2-informant filed a separate reply

denying the contents of the petition. It was asserted that the

petitioners committed the offence punishable under Section

498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The informant

resided with the petitioner in the shared household in

Chandigarh. She even visited Chandigarh during her course of

Doctorate of Medicine in PGI, Rohtak. The police failed to

discharge their duties and carry out the investigation. Hence,

::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:02 :::CIS
5
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8554 )

the informant had to file an application under Section 156(3) of

Cr.P.C. before the competent Court. The petitioners treated the

.

informant with cruelty. The present petition is an abuse of the

process of the Court. Therefore, it was prayed that the present

petition be dismissed.

6. I have heard Mr Ashwani Pathak, learned Senior

Counsel assisted by Mr Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for

the petitioners, Ms Ayushi Negi, learned Deputy Advocate

General, for respondent No.1/State and Mr Vipin Pandit, learned

counsel for respondent No.2/informant.

7. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they

were falsely implicated. The contents of the FIR do not show the

commission of any cognizable offence. Learned Magistrate had

himself held that he was taking cognizance and not referring the

matter to the police for investigation. The registration of the FIR

in the present case amounts to an abuse of the process of the

Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed

and the FIR be ordered to be quashed.

::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:02 :::CIS
6

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8554 )

8. Ms Ayushi Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General,

for respondent No.1/State submitted that the police registered

.

the FIR as per the directions of the learned Magistrate. As per

the investigation conducted by the police, the version of the

informant that she was harassed for dowry was established. The

FIR discloses the commission of a cognizance offence.

Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

9. Mr. Vipin Pandit, learned counsel for respondent

No.2/informant adopted the submissions of Ms. Ayushi Negi,

learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State and

submitted that the police are carrying out the investigation. The

present petition is premature and the same should be dismissed.

10. I have given considerable thought to the submissions

made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

11. 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 by

::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:02 :::CIS
7
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8554 )

this 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 to
refer 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
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

Works Ltd. 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

::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:02 :::CIS
8
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8554 )

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.

(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.

::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:02 :::CIS
9

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8554 )

12. 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
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 exhaustive list 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 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 officers 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

::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:02 :::CIS
10
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8554 )

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 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
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 and

continuance 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

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect
that the power of quashing a criminal
proceeding should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that too in the
rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be
justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and

::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:02 :::CIS
11
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8554 )

that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to
act according to its whim or caprice.”

.

13. A perusal of the record shows that the Court had

specifically noticed in the order dated 19.9.2022 that the

Investigating Officer had already submitted a report stating that

the civil litigations were pending between the parties and no

investigation was to be ordered, hence, the complaint was

treated to be a private complaint. The Court had passed an order

of summoning the accused on 8.6.2023. It had nowhere ordered

that the complaint was to be sent to the police for registration of

the FIR. Hence, the letter written by the learned Trial Court to

the police for treating the same as FIR was without any legal

basis. The record also does not explain how a letter sending the

order to the police was sent.

14. The police had also registered the FIR reproducing

the order of the learned Trial Court summoning the accused for

the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A

IPC and Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is difficult to

see how the contents of the order of summoning the accused

disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. Thus, no FIR

::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:02 :::CIS
12
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8554 )

could have been registered based on the order passed by the

Court.

.

15. The State has filed a detailed reply stating that it had

taken the material on record and it was found that the

petitioners were harassing the accused. It is not understood how

the police had investigated the allegations, which never showed

the commission of any cognizable offence.

16. The record shows that the learned Trial Court is

seized of the matter. It has treated the application as a private

complaint and ordered the summoning of the accused. In these

circumstances, the registration of the FIR on the same matter on

which the competent Court has taken cognizance and ordered

the issuance of the summons is not justified.

17. In the present case, the registration of the FIR

appears to be the result of some error committed by the

ministerial staff, who forwarded the order of the Court without

any order to do so. The police without verifying whether the

commission of a cognizable offence was disclosed in the order or

not, straightway proceeded to register the FIR and carry out the

investigation. It is trite to say that the FIR can only be registered

::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:02 :::CIS
13
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8554 )

when the allegations made before the police show the

commission of a cognizable offence and not otherwise. Since in

.

the present case, there were no allegations of the commission of

the cognizable offence and the contents of the order were

confined to the act done by the Court, the FIR could not have

been registered.

18. Therefore, the plea of the petitioners that the

registration of the FIR in the present case was not justified and

the same amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court has to

be accepted as correct.

19. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the

FIR No. 79 of 2023, dated 23.8.2023, for the commission of

offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with

Section 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Rekong Peo, Kalpa,

District Kangra, H.P. is ordered to be quashed.

20. The observations made here-in-before shall remain

confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing,

whatsoever, on the merits of the case.

::: Downloaded on – 16/09/2024 20:31:02 :::CIS
14

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8554 )

21. Registry is directed to send a cop of this judgment

along with complete records to the learned Trail Court

.

forthwith.






                                                (Rakesh Kainthla)





                                                     Judge
     16th September, 2024
          (Chander)




                         r      to









                                           ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2024 20:31:02 :::CIS
 

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *