PRABHU DAYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Prabhu Dayal, has prayed for quashing of the FIR, namely FIR No.04/2013, registered at Police Station Bisau, District Jhunjhunu for offences under Sections 332, 143, 353 IPC. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.01.2013, one Madan Lal Khatik, the SHO, Police Station Excise, Jhunjhunu, lodged a report at Police Station Bisau, District Jhunjhunu, wherein he claimed that according to the information supplied to him by an informant, on 10.1.2013 at about 7.00 AM, the excise party had gone to Village Dheelsar in order to carryout a raid on the shop owned by one Ram Niwas. When they reached the village, they found Ram Niwas sitting in his shop. However, when Ram Niwas saw the raiding party coming towards his shop, he closed his shop, and raised a hue and cry. Hearing his hue and cry, the family members of Ram Niwas and Master Prabhudayal, the petitioner, came armed with sticks and rescued Ram Niwas from the raiding party. He further alleged that Prabhudayal misbehaved with the raiding party by shouting at them and by calling them names. The situation turned so grave that the raiding party had to contact the police. But by the time the police arrived, these persons had run away. Subsequently, when the shop was inspected, a large quantity of illicit liquor was discovered. On the basis of the said report, a formal FIR, namely FIR No.04/2013 was registered for offence under Sections 332, 143, 353 IPC. Hence, this petition for quashing of the said FIR.

(2.) MR . R.D.S. Naruka, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the petitioner is being falsely implicated in the present case. The falsity of the case is apparent from the fact that the petitioner happens to be a teacher in the Government Middle School situated at Dheelsal itself. The Principal of the school has issued a certificate in his favour. In the certificate, the Principal has claimed that the petitioner reaches the school prior to its opening and leaves subsequent to its closing. Thus, it is apparent that on the fateful day, the petitioner was not present at the scene of the crime, but was at the school. Secondly, the petitioner has no concern with the illicit liquor so recovered from the shop of Ramniwas. Thirdly, the personal liberty of a citizen should be protected by this court. Fourthly, since the petitioner is working as a government teacher, his arrest may adversely affect his service career. Hence, the FIR deserves to be quashed.

(3.) IT is, indeed, trite to state that the jurisdiction of this court in interfering with a FIR is an extremely limited one. The averments made in the FIR should be taken at their face value and should be accepted as uncontroverted facts. If the allegations reveal existence of the ingredients of an offence, then this court should not interfere with the FIR. Therefore, at this moment this court is merely concerned with the allegations made in the FIR. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that there is sufficient evidence to prima facie make out offences under Sections 332, 143, 353 IPC. Moreover, the petitioner has not pleaded that any animosity exists between him and the complainant. Thus, there is no reason for the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in the present case.