R.K. CHANAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R . K. Chanan and others have moved this criminal miscellaneous under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of First Information Report No. 814 dated 28-11-1990, under Section 342 323, 326 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station City, Gurgaon and the consequent proceedings and the investigation.

(2.) THE impugned FIR was registered on the statement of Navita alias Namita d/o Naresh Chaudhry of Nainital (UP). The version given by her runs as under :

(3.) NORMALLY , while dealing with a criminal miscellaneous under Section 482, Cr.P.C. this Court has to confine itself to the allegations made in the FIR, to find out if some criminal offence is disclosed or not but, in appropriate cases, the Court may take into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances and reach a conclusion, on consideration of all the relevant material, whether on offence is disclosed or not. In support of my observations reliance is placed on West Bengal, and ors, v. Swapan Kumar Guha and others, AIR 1992 SC 949. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed therein that once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the interest of justice. If, however, no offence is disclosed, an investigation cannot be permitted, as any investigation, in the absence of any offence being disclosed, will result in unnecessary harassment to a party, whose liberty and property may be, put to jeopardy for nothing. Their Lordships further observed as under :