KISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner -accused for quashing the chargesheet being No. 100/2011, arising out of FIR No. 83 of 2011 registered at Police Station -Nayashahar, Bikaner for the offences under section 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D and 489E IPC, filed in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bikaner. It has been sought to be submitted by Learned Counsel Mr. Anil Upman for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially arrested for the offences under section 489B and 489C IPC registered against him as FIR No. 74 of 2011 at the Police Station -Loonkaransar, Bikaner. According to him, during the investigation of the said case, certain information was given by the petitioner -accused under section 27 of Evidence Act and on the basis of said information, the Police had registered separate FIR No. 83 of 2011 at the Police Station -Nayashahar for the offence under sections 489A, 489B, 49C, 489D and 489E IPC. According to him, the evidence collected on the basis of information given by the accused during the course of investigation of one case cannot be used for registering the other case and the Police cannot register a separate FIR on the basis of such information. Learned Counsel Mr. Upman has submitted that filing of separate chargesheets against the accused in two separate cases would tentamount to misuse of process of law, which is not permissible.

(2.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the parties and to the documents on record, it appears that two separate FIRs being No. 74 of 2011 Police Station -Loonkaransar, Bikaner and 83 of 2011 Police Station -Nayashahar, Bikaner were registered against the petitioner -accused for the offences under sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D and 489E IPC. It is not disputed that in both the FIRs, the chargesheets have already been submitted by the concerned investigation officers before the concerned courts and on the committal of the cases to the concerned courts, the charges have already been framed against the accused. Now it will be the matter of appreciation of evidence for the concerned courts at the time of trial as to whether the accused has been rightly involved in both the cases or not. There being prima facie case found by the concerned investigation officers for submission of chargesheets and the prima facie case found by the concerned courts for framing of charges against the accused in both the cases, it could not be said that there is any abuse of process of law.

(3.) IT is needless to say that inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 should be exercised very sparingly and only when the court is satisfied that there is an abuse of process of law.