SULTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner Sultan Singh is the father-in-law of the complainant Smt. Sashi Bala (since deceased) seeking quashing of F.I.R. No. 20 dated 28.1.1994 Police Station Jhajjar registered under Sections 498- A/406, Indian Penal Code. The grounds on which the F.I.R. is sought to be quashed, stated briefly, are as under:-

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the authority reported in Parmod Kumar Oberoi and others v. Radha Rani, 1991(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 524 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that general allegations made by the complainant regarding the harassment for demand of dowry did not even prima facie constitute the alleged offence and criminal proceedings on the basis of such complaint amounted to abuse of process of Court and were liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on an observation made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, in the order passed on a petition for anticipatory bail on 11.2.1994 to the following effect:-

(3.) A perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R. which has been quoted in extenso in the petition in para 1(page No. 5 to page No. 8 of the paper book), leaves no room for doubt regarding specific allegations about the various offences committed by the petitioner and other accused. Section 32 of the Evidence Act is relevant for admissibility of the allegations made in the F.I.R. as also in the statement of the complainant, if recorded during investigation under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Thirukkural Perumal, 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 397, has held that the power of quashing an F.I.R. and criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly by the Courts. Indeed, the High Court has the extraordinary or inherent power to reach out injustice and quash the First Information Report and criminal proceedings, keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments including the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 426, but the same has to be done with circumspection. The normal process of the criminal trial cannot be cut short in the rather casual manner. The Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complainant on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation only while dealing with a petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code seeking the quashing of the F.I.R. and the criminal proceedings. It may further be noticed that the trial Court has, after applying its judicial mind to the material before it, has found a prima facie case to frame charge against the petitioner and the other accused and the case is fixed for recording evidence. It cannot, thus, be said at this stage whether the allegations made in the F.I.R. suffer from vagueness and generality sufficient enough to quash the F.I.R. on that score alone.