PRABHA SURANA Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Taka Masa, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2, assisted by Mr. Arenlong, learned counsel and Mr. K. Angami, learned P.P. for the State.

(2.) The petitioners in both the revision applications have been named in the FIR dtd. 15/1/2019, registered as Diphupar PS Case No. 3/2019. The contention of the petitioner in both the petitions is that the perusal of the said FIR would not disclose any offence against the petitioners and the materials on the basis on which the FIR has been registered also would not disclose that the petitioners had anything to do with the amount of Rs.8,45,36,437.00 paid by the complainant, i.e. respondent No. 2 to Shri Nitin Dani's family for acquiring a property. It is on the basis of the said contention that both the petitions have been filed for quashing of the FIR dtd. 15/1/2019 registered under Ss. 420/406/120 B/34 IPC registered as Diphupar PS Case No. 3/2019.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an established principle of law that if the FIR/complaint in question does not disclose a cognizable offence or offence of any kind, this Court, in exercise of its power under Sec. 482 would quash the said FIR. He submits that the perusal of the said FIR which have been registered under Ss. 420/406/120 B/34 IPC would not disclose any commission of an offence in so far as the petitioners are concerned and as such, the said FIR is required to be quashed. In that regard he relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Harilal Hiralal Bhagwati Vs CBI, New Delhi, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 257, more particularly to paragraph 40 of the said judgment. He further submits that the documents enclosed to the said FIR would show that the respondent No. 2 had dealings only with one Smti. Amita Dani and Shri Anand Dani represented by Shri Nitin Dani and it would be apparent from a perusal of the deed of agreement dtd. 23/12/2015 executed between the respondent No. 2 and Smti. Amita Dani and Shri Anand Dani. He further submits that the letter dtd. 5/10/2018, reference to which have been made in the said FIR is a communication issued by the petitioners to Shri Nitin Dani, Smti. Amita Dani and Shri Anand Dani and that has nothing to do with the respondent No. 2 and in fact, there is not even a single reference also so far as the respondent No. 2 is concerned. He, therefore, submits that the filing of the instant FIR against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court for which he refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajanlal Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, more particularly to paragraph 102. He submits that when a criminal proceeding is being initiated on the face of which is an abuse of the process of the Court, the Court can exercise the jurisdiction both under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the said criminal proceedings. He further submits that the order dtd. 20/1/2019, issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur, whereby the warrant of arrest/production warrant/transit warrant was issued against the petitioners was done mechanically without taking into consideration the provisions of Sec. 41(A) of the Code.