K D SETHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 263/91 and consequent investigation proceedings initiated against him by Police Station, Pacca Danga, Jammu and Crime Branch, Jammu, allegedly for the commission of offences under sections 408 & 420 R.P.C. It is submitted that the transaction, the basis of the FFR, is a civil transaction not warranting any criminal action. No offence is made out against the petitioner even if the allegations made in the FIR are deemed to be correct. Registration of the FIR and consequent investigation are stated to be total abuse of the process of law and means of harassment to the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) MR . Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the agreement executed between the parties and referred to AIR 1960 SC 866, AIR 1956 SC 149, AIR 1977 SC 1766, ATR 1983 SC 631. In R.P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), it was laid down : "The inherent power of High Court under S. 56I -A, Criminal P.C. cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceeding at an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction." The Supreme Court further held that the Court may be justified in exercising jurisdiction under Sec. 561 -A Cr.P.C, where it manifestly appears that there was a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings in respect of the alleged offence of where the allegation in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged or where the allegation against the accused person do constitute offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. However, in exercising its jurisdiction under Sec. 561 -A, the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question h reliable or not which is the function of the trial magistrate. In that case the Supreme Court found that the allegations made against the petitioner in the FIR constitute certain offence alleged against him and there was no legal bar to the institution of the proceedings commenced on the FIR or their continuance. The petition filed for quashing the proceedings was held rightly dismissed.

(3.) RELIANCE of the learned counsel on AIR 1977 SC 1766 is misplaced inasmuch as in that casa the accused was tried, convicted and sentenced by a magistrate and the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 1991, acquitted him on merits. Reliance of the learned counsel on AIR 1983 SC 63: is also misplaced on the same ground.