Rajpal and Anr v. State of Haryana and Anr

IN T

Rajpal an

State of H

CORAM

Present: -

NIDHI G

¶1No.0077 354-A, 35 Station, B challan/fi Court, Fa other subs

¶2petitioner herein. T sinister a counterbl No.2/mot THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA

Criminal Misc.

Date of decision nd another Versus Haryana and another M:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE N

Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Surinder Kumar Dagar, D GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petiti dated 28.05.2022 (Annexure P 54-C, 354-D, 506 and 509 IPC, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad; nal report dated 04.8.2022 prese aridabad under Section 173 Cr.P sequent proceedings arising out Ld. Counsel for the petitione rs are the parents-in-law of the The present FIR has been filed and ulterior motive of the c ast to the complaint dated 6.4.2 ther-in-law under the Maintena

JAB AND HARYANA ARH . No. M-46314 of 2024 n :-19.09.2024 …..Petitioners …..Respondents NIDHI GUPTA e DAG, Haryana. ion is for quashing of FIR P-1) under Sections 120-B, registered at Women Police and further for quashing of ented before the learned trial P.C. (Annexure P-8); and all of the said FIR, on merits. ers inter alia submits that the e complaint/respondent no.2 d with an illegal intent and omplainant. The FIR is a 2022 made by the petitioner ance of Parents and Senior

Citizen A order date FIR is no their resi further su fabricated Cr.P.C w therefore,

¶3argues th FIR; inas that he h develop p petitioner by standin alleged th law/petiti for the St regard ha which is petitioner FSL for i submitted is further Court for

¶4Act, 2007; which was allowed in ed 2.9.2022 (Annexure P-2). It othing but a ploy to coerce the p idential house to the complain ubmitted that the allegations ma d. Moreover, statement of the co was recorded five days after regi , provisions of law have not been Per contra, learned counse hat very serious allegations hav smuch the allegation against pet had forcibly compelled the com physical relations with him. It r No.1 used to watch the compl ng on a stool while she was tak hat when the complainant com oner No.2 about this, she told he tate further informs that a Comp as been taken into possession b s stated to contain incrimina rs. The said Compact Disk/ Pen nvestigation, and the report is st d that an FIR of this nature canno informed that the matter is now

22.11.2024 for framing of charg No other argument is made o

favour of the petitioners vide is submitted that the present petitioners into handing over nant and her husband. It is ade in the FIR are false and omplainant under section 164 istration of the FIR. Clearly, n complied with. el for the State vehemently ve been made in the present titioner No.1/father-in-law is mplainant/respondent No.2 to has also been alleged that ainant through the ventilator king bath. It has further been mplained to her mother-in-er to bear it. Learned counsel mpact Disk/ Pen Drive in this by the Investigating Agency ating material against the n Drive has been sent to the till awaited. It is accordingly ot be quashed at this stage. It fixed before the learned trial ges. on behalf of the parties.

¶5the file.

¶6No.0077 Sections is reprodu I have heard learned counse Perusal of records of the c dated 28.05.2022 (Annexure 120-B, 354-A, 354-C, 354-D, 50 uced as follows:- "To, SHO, Women P Subject:- Application Sir ji, it is requested Neeraj Kumar is resi village Sahupura, T Faridabad in front o "That my father-in-la Lal is resident of 9268500227 who sinc me to physical explo and forcibly compelli relations. That entire d watching me through bath in the bathroom touching me anytime the house. When I aware about this, then my mouth and started and said to me that no things, you will have you will have to do wh told these things to m tried a lot to make his in return made him pressure through my Harbir son of Dharam

el for the parties and perused case shows that present FIR P-1) was registered under 06 and 509 IPC, 1860 which Police Station, Ballabgarh, regarding initiating action. d that I Sheela wife of Sh. ident of Shiv Nagar Colony, Tehsil Ballabgarh District of "Sir V.B. Public School. w Rajpal son of Sh. Shyam f village Sahupura Mo. ce a long time is subjecting oitation, mental harassment ing me to develop physical day looking into my room, by a ventilator while taking a m by standing on a stool, by anywhere while moving in made mother-in-law Saroj n she threatened me to shut d to threaten and frighten me o difference occurs with these to act according to us and hatever is said by us. When I my husband Neeraj than he s parents understand but they quiet and started to exert my brother-in-law (Nandoi) mbir to be quiet and to endure

everything and Har because of which I Thereafter, this thing proceeded further an started to make obsc phone (whose recordin drive herewith). By ge blocked his number ma from the block numbe used to subject me to print of screen shot I h mother-in-law used to me to talk to him. By made my parental fam by coming to the hous law and mother-in-law father-in-law and mo the house by giving u After some days of th Deepa wife of Mahe resident of village District Faridabad sister-in-law Renu wif Rajpal Mo. 995804 (Nandoi) Harbir son o Renu resident of Ballabgarh Mo. 8826 and started to have husband and both confining me into a r mouth shut and threa this we became quiet few days we are fin movement of suspiciou

rbir threatened to kill us became quiet due to fear. g did not stop here and nd my father-in-law forcibly cene talks with me over the ng I have given CD and Pen etting tired of all this I have any times but even thereafter er by calling 50 to 60 times o mental harassment (whose have appended herewith) but forcibly exert pressure upon y getting tired of all this, I mily aware about all this, they e tried to made my father-in-w understand but next day my ther-in-law went away from us threats to see us in anger. is incident my sister-in-law esh daughter of Sh. Rajpal Sunped Tehsil Ballabgarh Mo. 8860811792, second fe of Harbir daughter of Sh. 46071 and brother-in-law of Sh. Dharambir husband of village Machgar Tehsil 6490022 came to our house a scuffle with me and my of my sisters-in-law by room asked me to keep my tened to kill all of us. From due to fear. Now since past nding the activities of the us persons around our house,

¶7allegation present p petitioner seriousne quash th determine report un reveals th investigat there was father-in-petitioner in column section 34 learned A

07.07.202 sample w stone pelting on the banging the gate of th stalking by suspicious out of the house. I stay alone with my 5 year work and I am pregna of me and my husban from your good self th circumstances, hopes t against the accused wo A bare reading of the above ns have been made therein by petitioners. Counter allegations rs that the present FIR is motiva ss and gravity of the allegations he FIR as the sanctity of th ed after leading of evidence in nder section 173 CRPC dated hat after recording statements tion, a pen drive was presented b s recording of conversation betw law. After investigation, the rs were not found involved in the n No.2. Offence under section 4 IPC was added. Upon gettin ASJ Faridabad, the petitioner

¶22On 21.07.2022, petitioner N which has been sent to the FSL i

house, running away after he house without any reason, persons at the time of going y in the house in the day time old son, my husband goes to ant. I have threats to the life nd. Therefore, it is requested hat considering the aforesaid that prompt and quick action ould be initiated." FIR shows that very serious the complainant against the s have been made by the ted. However, in view of the , this Court is not inclined to he allegations can only be n that regard. Perusal of the d 4.8.2022 (Annexure P-8), of the complainant, during by the complainant in which ween the complainant and her other accused, besides the e FIR. As such they were put n 120 IPC was deleted, and ng anticipatory bail from the rs joined investigation on No.1-Rajpal gave his voice in respect of which report is

still awai complaina Needless truth or o establishe

¶8clear. In be apposi Supreme Ltd. Vs. 1830709, ited. Call detail records betwe ant have been retained and have to say, it is not for this Court to otherwise of the allegations and ed only after trial. Even otherwise, the legal po the facts and circumstances of ite to refer to a 3-Judge Bench Court in case titled as "M/s Nee State of Maharashtra & Othe relevant part of which is reprodu "10. From the aforesaid d from the decision of the of Khawaja NazirAhmad principles of law emerge:

i) Police has the statuto relevant provisions Procedure contained to investigate into cog

ii) Courts would not th the cognizable offenc

iii) However, in cognizable offence or disclosed in the first will not permit an inv

iv) The power of quas sparingly with circu rare cases'. (The rare its application for q Cr.P.C., 1973 is not t which has been form death penalty, as ex Court);

v) While examining an which is sought, the c enquiry as to the re otherwise of the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings the initial stage;

een the petitioner No.1 and e been sent for investigation. o examine the evidence. The d counter allegations can be osition in this regard is very f the present case, it would h judgment of the Hon'ble eharika Infrastructure Pvt. ers" Law Finder Doc ID # uced hereinbelow:- decisions of this Court, right Privy Council in the case (supra), the following ory right and duty under the of the Code of Criminal d in Chapter XIV of the Code gnizable offences; hwart any investigation into es; cases where r offence of any kind is information report the Court vestigation to go on; shing should be exercised umspection, in the rarest of est of rare cases standard in quashing under Section 482 to be confused with the norm mulated in the context of the xplained previously by this FIR/complaint, quashing of court cannot embark upon an eliability or genuineness or allegations made in the s ought not to be scuttled at

vii) Quashing of a com exception and a rarity

viii) Ordinarily, the court the jurisdiction of the of the State operate activities. The inher however, recognised or prevent the above 482 Cr.P.C., 1973

ix) The functions of the j complementary, not o

x) Save in exceptional c would result in misca and the judicial pro the stage of investiga

xi) Extraordinary and in do not confer an a Court to act accordin

xii) The first inform an encyclopaedia whi and details relating Therefore, when the i in progress, the cou merits of the allegati be permitted to com would be premature based on hazy facts not deserve to be inv to abuse of process investigation, if the in there is no substance the complainant, the an appropriate re learned Magistrate w the learned Magistra known procedure;

xiii) The power under Se very wide, but confer the court to be cautio more diligent duty on

xiv) However, at the same fit, regard being h quashing and the se more particularly th this Court in the case Bhajan Lal (supra), the FIR/complaint; an

xv) When a prayer for q the alleged accused, the power under Sec has to consider whet

mplaint/FIR should be an y than an ordinary rule; ts are barred from usurping e police, since the two organs e in two specific spheres of rent power of the court is, to secure the ends of justice e of the process by Section judiciary and the police are overlapping; cases where non-interference arriage of justice, the Court cess should not interfere at tion of offences; nherent powers of the Court rbitrary jurisdiction on the ng to its whims or caprice; mation report is not ich must disclose all facts g to the offence reported. investigation by the police is urt should not go into the ions in the FIR. Police must mplete the investigation. It to pronounce the conclusion that the complaint/FIR does vestigated or that it amounts s of law. During or after nvestigating officer finds that e in the application made by investigating officer may file eport/summary before the which may be considered by ate in accordance with the ection 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is rment of wide power requires ous. It casts an onerous and n the court; e time, the court, if it thinks had to the parameters of elf-restraint imposed by law, he parameters laid down by es of R.P. Kapur (supra) and has the jurisdiction to quash nd quashing the FIR is made by the court when it exercises ction 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 only ther or not the allegations in

¶9Hon'ble NCT of D held that: the FIR disclose cognizable offence an on merits whether t cognizable offence or permit the invest investigate the allega Reliance may also be pla Supreme Court in "Satvinder Delhi)" Law Finder doc ID #

"D. Criminal Procedure Quashing of FIR -Law en summed up :-

(i) If an offence is disclos interfere with investig permit investigation prima facie, disclosed court does not normal to do so would be to tr of Police to investiga 1982(1) SCC 561.

(ii) For purpose of exerc 482 Criminal Procedu or a complaint, the proceed entirely on b the complaint or the d same - It has no j correctness or othe 1985(2) SCC 370.

(iii) Power of quashing should be exercise circumspection and th cases.

(iv) Court will not be just inquiry as to the re otherwise of the alleg the complaint and inherent powers do jurisdiction on the co whim or caprice.

(v) First information rep move the machinery cognizable offence and the power and decidin

the commission of a nd is not required to consider the allegations make out a r not and the court has to tigating agency/police to ations in the FIR." (Emphasis supplied) ced upon judgment of the Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of # 32588, wherein it has been Code, 1973, Section 482 - nunciated by Supreme Court sed, Court will not normally gation into the case and will into the offence - If FIR, d commission of an offence, lly stop the investigation, for rench upon the lawful power ate into cognizable offences. cising power under Section ure Code, 1973 to quash FIR High Court would have to basis of allegations made in documents accompanying the jurisdiction to examine the erwise of the allegations. the criminal proceedings ed very sparingly with hat too in the rarest of rare tified in embarking upon an eliability or genuineness or gations made in the F.I.R. or that the extraordinary or not confer an arbitrary ourt to act according to its port is only an initiation to and to investigate into a d, therefore, while exercising ng whether the investigation

¶10noticed ab is accordi

11.

Septembe Vijay Asija

Whether spe Whether Rep

itself should be quas taken by the court a possible for the Cour weigh the materials conclusion one way (Criminal) 831.

(vi) High Court should b threshold to thwart th inherent power und Articles 226 and 227 and allow the law to ta

(vii) Such power should b exercised only when th otherwise there will justice.

(viii) Social stability and regulated by proceedi is an offenceagainst th Resultantly, in view of the f bove, I find no merit in the pr ingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, er 19, 2024

eaking/reasoned Yes / No portable Yes / No

hed, utmost care should be and at that stage it is not rt to sift the materials or to s and then come to the or the other. 1991(1) RCR be loath to interfere at the he prosecution exercising its der Section 482 or under of the Constitution of India ake its own course. be sparingly and cautiously he court is of the opinion that l be gross miscarriage of d order is required to be ing against the offender as it he society as a whole." factual and legal position as resent petition and the same also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA )

JUDGE