MUMTAZ KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.504 of 2015, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Nagaur.

(2.) In the impugned FIR, petitioners are charged for offences punishable under Section 143, 341 and 323 IPC. For laying challenge to the impugned FIR, it is inter-alia pleaded by the petitioners that the same is not disclosing commission of cognizable offence by any of the petitioners. For substantiating this ground to assail the impugned FIR, it is also submitted in the petition that narration of facts clearly goes to show that the same is founded on wild imagination of the complainant and the same is also actuated with an ulterior motive. Petitioners have also made an endeavour to challenge FIR with the specific plea that facts narrated therein are false and concocted, edificed on an afterthought to wriggle out from the FIR filed by the petitioners anterior to it. A ground is also set out in the petition that in fact complainant party was aggressor and gave beatings to petitioner No.1 and his family members including the children but without any rhyme or reason impugned FIR is lodged by the complainant to castigate all the petitioners on wholly fabricated facts. Lastly, it is submitted that a bare reading of the recitals of FIR makes it abundantly clear that occurrence of such an incident is inherently improbable and do not satisfy the test of prudency. It is in that background, petitioners have craved for quashment of FIR to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sunil Joshi, spearheading his arguments with full vehemence, submits that from a bare reading of FIR it is clearly discernible that the same is not disclosing any cognizable offence. Laying emphasis on a vital fact that FIR lodged at the behest of petitioners against the complainant and others is anterior to the impugned FIR, it is urged by the learned counsel that FIR under challenge is a counter blast in the form of retaliation which is oppressive and therefore cannot be sustained. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that allowing investigation into the impugned FIR would result in abuse of the process of the Court and therefore investigation in the matter be clogged perpetually and the same be annulled. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in Mumtaj Khan Munsi & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Aslam & Ors., 2011 CrLR 1490 (Raj).