DINDAYAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is petition under Section 482 Cr. R. C. requesting this court to quash the order dated August, 5,1995 where by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur took cognisance of the offence under Section 324 I. P. C. against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 30/86.

(2.) THE relevant facts are:-

(3.) THE conclusions arrived at above, I think are endorsed by the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (Supra) and R. D. Bajaj vs. K. P. S. Gill (Supra ). In the first of the cases referred to above, their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down the following guidelines for the exercise of powers conferred upon this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. ;- "the question under what circumstances and in what catego- ries of case the High Court can quash an FIR or a complaint in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has had been engaging the attention of this Court for long. Indeed the learned counsel for the parties invited our attention to some of those decisions. We need not, however, refer to them as in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal this Court considered its earlier decisions, including those referred to by the learned counsel and answered the above question as under (See pp-378-79, paras 102 & 103 ). "in the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid for- mulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1 ). Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police Officers under Section 156 (3) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absured and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudunt person can ever reach a just conclusion that there there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.