1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:ORDER:
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.939/2010.
(Babu Singh Rajpurohit Vs. State of Rajasthan)
DATE OF ORDER : October 19th, 2010
PRESENT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
__________________________________________
Reportable :
Mr. Mahesh Bora for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Joshi, P.P. for the State.In this petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the
petitioner has made the following prayer :
“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that
the petition filed by the petitioner U/s 482
Cr.P.C. may kindly be allowed F.I.R. No.132/08
dated 09-06-08 police station Anti Corruption
Bureau, C.P.S. Jaipur may kindly be quashed.”
The above FIR for which the prayer has been made
for quashing the same, was filed against the petitioner for
alleged offences under Sections 13(1)(C)(D) and 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409, 467, 468,
471, 477(A) and 120B, I.P.C. Admittedly, the petitioner is
elected Sarpanch and, in the said FIR, certain allegations
have been levelled against the petitioner for committing
forgery and misappropriation of money. The said FIR,
2filed against the petitioner, runs as follows :
“श म न,
ननवदन ह क ववशसन य सत स सचन प प हई क श ब बससह
ग म पच यत ढ बर पच यत ससमनत र”हट ज%ल प ल’ म( वर* 2005 म(
सरपच पद पर ननव *चचत ह” र वत*म न म( सरपच पद पर य*रत ह।
श ब बससह न सरपच पद पर पदस. वपत रहत हए अपन पद
दरपय”ग र भ 4रष आचरण अपन त हए श समपतर % पत श मभर %
% नत ब हमण ननव स ढ बर ज%ल प ल’ स समल’भगत र एव आपर च:
रडयत रच र वर* 2005-06 म( ग म पच यत ढ बर वव स य* हत
ननम *ण स मग आपनत* रन हत उक श समपतर % > “ई द न नह’
ह”न उपर नत भ मसस* समपतर % मभर % बबजAडग मटररयल
सपल यस* ढ बर न म स ननववद सव D त > गई त. इस द न
RST/CST नबर भ नह’ ह” र उक फम* म त ग% फम* ह। इस फम*
स वर* 2005-06, 2006-07 एव 2007-08 म( हए वव स यG हत
पयक स मग चच बबल ब छपव र बबल प प र भगत न रन
दर * र र सर गबन क य गय ह। श समपतर % वसतत: र’गर
ह” र म न ननम *ण य* रत ह। ग म पच यत ढ बर म( श
ब बससह सरपच द र रव य गय ववसभनन वव स यG मसL”लM म(
भ उक श समपतर % न म द%* ह” र भगत न र सर उठ य गय ह
त. इस समपण* प रण > % च श म न ज%ल लकटर प ल’ द र भ
रव य % न पर उक तथयM > पवष ह”न प य गय ह आदद।
उपयक
* सत सचन कम म( ववभ ग य सतर पर रव य गय
%च > % च ररप"ट* > फ"ट" पनत प प > % र अवल" न क य गय
त" इस प रण > %च त न > अच: र' श :नन र म ववश"ई सह य
3
असभयनत ज%ल परररद प ल' द र > % न एव वसतजस.नत ननमन नस र
प ट ह"न प य गय :--
मUसस* समपतर % मभर % बबजAडग मटररयल सपल यस* ढ बर
तहस ल र"हट ज%ल प ल' न म > बबल ब श ब बससह सरपच द र
छपव य गय । उक बबलM म धयम स ग म पच यत र"हट वव स
यG हत ननम *ण स मग आपनत* बबलM पर श समपतर % हसत कर
हU %बक उक न म > ग म ढ बर म( "ई द न अजसततव म( नह' ह"न
प य गय । श समपतर % % नत ब हमण ग म ढ बर ननव स ह" र
खत य* रत ह त. ग म ढ बर म( ननव स रत ह। उक बबल
ब स % र' क य गय बबलM पर बबल कम एव ददन भ अक त नह'
त. बबलM पर CST/RST नबर भ अक त नह' ह। कफर भ गम
पच यत न पच यत ननम *ण यG हत वर* 2005-06, 2006-07 एव
2007-08 म( ननम *ण स मग कय रन दर *य % र बबल एव व उचर
बन य % र भगत न रन दर *य गय ह। ग म पच यत मल
बबल/व उचरM स मसस* समपतर % मभर % बबजAडग मटररयल सपल यस*
ढ बर म( नह' ह"न उपर नत भ उक फम* > बबल ब बबन न० एव
बबन CST/RST > छपव र बबन टणडर आमबतत क य ग म पच यत
ढ बर न म उक ववत य वरG म( बबल एव व उचर बन य % र ल खM
रपयM भगत न दर *य गय ह।
1. ग%*रM बस न व स म( ट ननम *ण SGRY 50 पनतरत य"%न
तहत ग म पच यत ढ बर सतर पर 27,000 र सव D नत
अनसरण म( उक य* पर 27,254 र ग म पच यत ढ बर द र वयय
क य गय। ननसम*त यG भ^नत सतय पन रन पर ट उपर
> छत टट’ हई ह” र य* > गणवत सब सटणड* > प य गय ।
4
2. ल ल र म > ढण प स ढ बर स व*%नन ननम *ण > ववत य एव
पर सनन सव D नत कम 4855-4911 ददन 27.03.06 ” 25,500 र
> SGRY 30 पनतरत य”%न तहत % र’ हई इस सव D नत
अनसरण म( ग म पच यत ढ बर द र 21,987.51 र वयय क य गय।
ननम *ण य* भ^नत सतय पन रन पर ट आग”र नह’ बन
ह”न एव ट > छत % ण*-र ण* अवस. म( ह”न प य गय । य*
पण*त पम ण-पत ननष असभयनत द र % र’ नह’ ह” र सवय सरपच
श ब बससह द र % र’ क य % न प य गय ।
3. आगनव ड दददय म( र^च लय ननम ण य* > पत वल’ म( म त द”
व उचर न 0 32 ए ददन 21.12.06 र सर 676 र एव व उचर न0 15
ददन 03.08.06 3,996 मल बबल लग ह”न एव उक द”नM बबल
समपतर % मभर % बबजAडग मटररयल सपल यस* ढ बर बबन बबल
न0 एव बबन ददन ह”न प य गय । भ^नत सतय पन रन पर
ननम *ण य* ननमन गणवत ह”न एव अनपय”ग ह”न स क य
गय वयय ननषफल ह”न प य गय ।
4. आगनव ड भवन ढ बर म( र^च लय ननम *ण य* > पत वल’ म(
मसस* समपतर % भर % बबजAडग मटररयलस* सपल यस* द” व उचर
न0 14 ददन 03.08.06 एव 38 ददन 24.06.06 रपय 4,000 एव
500 बबन बबल न0 एव बबन ददन मसस* समपतर % भर %
बबजAडग मटररयलसपल यस* ढ बर प य गय। भ^नत सतय पन रन
पर द’व र म( दर र आन एव ननम *ण य* ननमन घदटय- सतर
ह”न प य गय ।
5. ठ र% मददर प स दददय म( स स र"ड मय न ल' ननम *ण
य* SFC एव अ ल र हत डवटल र य* सव D त र सर 50,000 >
5
% र' र रव य गय । रर ड* अवल" न रन पर मसस*
समपतर % भर % बबजAडग मटररयल सपल यस* ढ बर बबन बबल
न0 एव बबन ददन भगत न ग म पच यत द र व उचर सखय 4
ददन 14.06.05 र सर 16,386 र. व उचर सखय 2 ददन 17.05.05 द र
र सर 5,600 र त. व उचर सखय 5 ददन 25.06.05 द र र सर 8,600
र. एव व उचर सखय 6 ददन 02.09.05 द र र सर 4,224 र.
भगत न ग म पच यत सरपच द र क य गय ह। अ ल र हत
मसL"लM भगत न शसम M " तहस ल सतर स क य गय ह।
भ^नत सतय पन रन पर य* नन: *ररत गणवत नह' ह"न प य
गय ।
6. र र मघव ल घर प स स व*%नन च^ म( गवल भतc
य* SGRY 50 पनतरत य"%न तहत ग म पच यत सतर स
सव D नत कम 112 ददन 06.03.07 द र र सर 10,000 र % र' >
गई। इस सव D नत र सर अनसरण म( गवल पररवहन भगत न
व उचर सखय 18 ददन 30.03.07 " उममदससह पत श नन ससह
ढ बर " क य गय % न प य गय । श उममदससह सरपच श
ब बससह सग भ ई ह। इस ननम *ण य* पर 10,000 र वयय ह"न
रर ड* स प य गय । भ^नत सतय पन पर उपयक
* ननम *ण य* म^
पर अजसततव म( नह' ह"न प य गय ।
7. रर र म भ ट घर स र"ड त झ र डलव ई य* SGRY 50
पनतरत य"%न तहत पत 112 ददन 06.03.07 द र र सर 20,000
र सव D नत % र' > गई। इस सव D नत अनसरण म( पररवहन वयय
पर 5,928 र. भगत न सरपच भ ई श उममदससह " क य %न
प य गय । भ^नत सतय पन पर य* > कव सलट' सब सटणड* प य
6
गय ।
8. % लम ससह घर स सAत न ससह घर त ढ बर म( समट एव
गवल भर ई य* > सव D नत पच यत ससमनत सतर स SGRY 30
पनतरत य"%न तहत सव D नत कम 1540 ददन 24.11.06 "
र सर 50,000 र. % र' > गई। इस सव D नत अनसरण म( य* पर
पररवहन वयय 4,449 र. भगत न सरपच भ ई श उममदससह "
बबन व उचर सखय एव ददन क य गय । इस प र उक श
उममद ससह " व उचर सखय 16 ददन 01.06.07 म धयम स र सर
8,151 र. भगत न क य गय ।
9. .भ"प % > पल प स ढ बर म( सरक द'व र ननम *ण य*
TFC य"%न तहत सव D त र सर 79,000 र. % र' र अ ल र हत
म( डवटल रत हए सव D नत % र' > गई। इस सव D नत अनसरण
म( ल 78,957 पच यत द र वयय क य गय । भ^नत सतय पन
पर य* > गणवत सह' नह' प य गय एव Mप ग नन: *ररत म प
दणड अनस र नह' प य गय ।
10.मठ प स ढ बर खद* म( र^च लय ननम *ण य* रर ड* अनस र
SGRY 50 पनतरत य"%न तहत ग म पच यत सतर स ववत य
सव D नत कम 08 ददन 05.04.06 र सर 36,000 र. % र' > गई।
पत वल' पर ननम *ण य* त म न उपलब: नह' ह"न प य गय ।
इस ननम *ण य* शसम मद मसL"ल सखय 99822 अवच:
21.03.06 स 28.06.06 त भ^नत कम सखय 1 पर उक च.त फम*
म सल श समपतर % न म सलख ह"न प य गय । सतय पन
पर मठ प स म( "ई र^च लय बन हआ नह' प य गय ।
11.र मदव% मददर त ढ बर म( न ल ववसत र य* TFC (ग म पच यत)
7
य"%न तहत सव D नत कम 103 ददन 08.02.07 " र सर 10,000
र. > % र' > गई। रर ड* अनस र स मग सपल ई बबल मसस*
समपतर % भर % बबजAडग मटररयल सपल यस* ढ बर बबन बबल
न0 एव बबन ददन बन य % र भगत न क य % न प य गय ।
इस ननम *ण य* शम मद मसL"ल सखय 20286 अवच:
17.02.07 स 28.02.07 त कम सखय 3 पर उक च.त फम*
म सल श समपतर % नम र'गर रप म( सलख हआ ह"न
प य गय ।
12.र र मघव ल घर प स ढ बर म( स व*%नन च^ पर झ र
बबछ य य* मसL"ल न0 56628 अवच: 25.03.07 स 31.03.07 त
शसम M > ह %र' भर' हई ह इस मसL"ल म( कम सखय 7 पर म"हन
पत सस र म घ च न म सलख हआ ह। लक न रज%सL र (%नम-
मतD य) द र % र' पम ण पत आ: र पर ददन 16.05.06 " उक
म"हन > मतD य ह" च > . । मसL"ल सखय 44807 कम सखय 7
पर भ न म द%* रन स . ह' अवच: 1.01.07 स 06.01.07 त
भगत न भ क य % न प य गय ह। लक न भ^नत सतय पन य*
अजसततव म( नह' ह"न प य गय ।
उपयक
* ह ल त एव त न > अच: र', सह य असभयनत , ज%ल
परररद प ल' द र > गई % च स श ब बससह सरपच ग म पच यत ढ बर
एव श समपतर % पत श भर % % नत ब हमण ननव स ग म ढ बर
पसलस . न र"हट ज%ल प ल' न आपस समल'भगत र एव आपर च:
रडयत रच र वर* 2006-07 एव 2007-08 म( श समपतर % न म बबन
टणडर सव D त क य मसस* समपत र % भर % बबजAडग मटररयल
सपल यस* ढ बर नम > बबन बबल नृD बबन CST/RST नमबर >
8
बबल ब छपव र उक फम* स ग म पच यत वव स ननम *ण यG
हत स मग कय रन दर * र ल 1,55,795.00 र > ग म पच यत "र
" अनचचत आच.* ह नन > गई %बक उक फम* > द न ग म ढ बर
म( अजसततव म( ह' नह' ह"न प य गय ।
इस प र श ब बससह सरपच न अपन सग भ ई श उममदससह
स वव स यG हत स मग पररवहन रव य बबन ह' भगत न रन
दर * र ल 28,528.00 र > ग म पच यत ढ बर " अनचचत आच.*
ह नन ररत > गई %बक सरपच पद पर रहत हए सरपच पररव र
क स भ सदसय " दहत ल भ ददल न प व: न र %स. न पच यत
अच:ननयम म( नह' ह। इस प र श ब बससह सरपच न श समपतर %
स समल'भगत र ल 1,55,795.00 र त. उक सरपच न अपन सग भ ई
श उममदससह स समल'भगत र ल 28,528.00 र फ%c व उचर/बबल
पप र र सर गबन रन पम णणत प य गय ह। अत: उक D तय
अपर : : र 13(1)(स )(ड )(2) प स एकट 1988, : र 409, 467, 468, 471,
477 ए, 120 ब भ 0 द0 स0 गदठत ह”न प य % त ह।
अत: बबन नमबर' प.म सचन पनतवदन तय र क य % र
कम न हत पवरत ह।
भवद'य
एसड /-
(मलससह)
उप अ: क पसलस
भष च र ननर": बयर"
प ल'"
Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course
of arguments, submitted that the above FIR is totally false
and is a consequence of political pressure and aimed at
9
maligning the petitioner’s prestige. In the petition,
following grounds have been taken by the petitioner :
“A. That as stated in the facts that a technical
committee headed by the Assistant Engineer, Water
Resources, Zila Parishad, Pali and having members
viz., two Junior Engineers and Junior Accountant, a
report was given by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad Pali to the Dy. S.P., Anti Corruption Bureau,
Pali on 18-11-08. It is stated that on 14-10-08 the
committee inspected all the places in the presence of
the representative from the A.C.B. and found that in
the works there is no loss to the State. Meaning
thereby the allegation against the petitioner that the
materials were supplied by a fake company and the
petitioner misappropriated the money is totally false.
As far as R.S.T. And C.S.T. Numbers are concerned,
that is not necessary to get the supply from those
shops or the suppliers who were having R.S.R.,
C.S.T. Numbers as far as Panchayat works are
concerned. It is relevant to mention here that
under the Panchayat Samiti Rohat there are 23 gram
Panchayats and in all those 23 gram Panchayats the
supply of the materials were supplied by the local
supplier and there is no R.S.T., C.S.T. Number
10
available to them. This shows that there is no
necessity of R.S.T., C.S.T. Number. It is further
stated in the meeting of the Sarpanch and Pradhan
of Panchayat Samiti Rohat6 dated 29-10-09 that
when tenders are floated and nobody appear then
construction work including the supply is to be
conducted on the basis of BSR rates. Meaning
thereby in giving work on BSR rates there is no
irregularity. The letter dated 29-10-09 and the
report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer are
produced herewith the application.
B. That as per the Rural Works Directory 2004 which is
issued by the Government of Rajasthan, it is stated
in the para 6(i) that rates are to be fixed as per the
local situation that’s why all those materials which
are to be supplied to the Panchayat are supplied by
the local agencies. It is not only in the petitioner’s
Panchayat but in all other Panchayats also. Another
allegation was made against the petitioner that
tender of transportation of goods was given to
Umaid Singh who is brother of the petitioner. It is
true that tender was given to Umaid Singh but
Umaid Singh’s tender was lowest and Umaid Singh
11
being the brother of the petitioner cannot be denied
because his tender was lowest. There is no
allegation that he did not supply the materials.
Because his tender was only for the transportation
and he transported the goods and as per rules the
tender was given to him and payment was made.
This false allegation was made against the petitioner
just to harass and tarnish the image of the
petitioner. As stated in the preceding para that
there were 12 works and among those 12 works,
two works are of construction of common toilets at
Dabar Ka Math and Aanganwari Dudiya. It is
prerogative of the Panchayat to choose the place of
construction common toilets in the village. These
toilets were constructed after taking a resolution of
the Panchayat and this does not come into cvategory
of any irregularity. This amount was spent from
“Sampurna Swachhata Karyakram” project and that
is in all over Pali district by the order of the district
collector and toilets were constructed for the kids
and pregnant women who come to visit Aanganwari
Dabar and Aanganwari Dudiya. As far as toilets
constructed near Math are concerned, that are the
common toilets which is constructed on the public
12
place for the benefit of entire village especially near
the Math. This how can be said as irregularity on
the part of the petitioner and what offence has been
committed if the Panchayat has passed the
resolution for construction of the common toilets.
C. That a stated earlier that in the technical report the
technical committee found that that was no loss to
the State in those construction works. Even then
the allegations were made against the petitioner that
few persons did not work on the site and the
payments were taken by some other persons. How
this allegation is proved when the entire work is
satisfactory. As far as payment is concerned the
payment is made half in cash and half in the form of
wheat. Wheat is given by the Gram Seva Sahakari
Samiti and as per the record the Gram Seva
Sahakari Samiti, the wheat was given to all those
persons whose names were mentioned in the
muster-rolls. Meaning thereby all false allegations
have been made. No case is made out by bare
perusal of the F.I.R. and even in the investigation.
Hence, the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed and set
aside.”
13
While referring to the above grounds, learned
counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court
towards judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
reported in 2004 (2) W.L.C. 444, S.S. Kothari Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Another, and another judgment reported in
2004 (3) Raj. Cr. Digest 373 (Raj.), Gyanesh Kothari
Vs. State of Rajasthan. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner that not only FIR but subsequent
investigation can be quashed as per the ratio drawn in the
said judgments delivered by co-ordinate Benches of this
Court.
I have considered the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner and, so also, perused the
FIR as well as judgments cited by him.
First of all, it is required to be observed that facts of
this case are altogether different than the facts of the cited
cases, upon which, the reported judgments were delivered.
It is also settled principle of law that there cannot be a
straight jacket formula for deciding each and every petition
filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR. The
parameter laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335, the apex Court has laid down guidelines in which
14
inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be
exercised. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid
down in the aforesaid judgment as follows :
“102. 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 or 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 the
process of any court to 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 formulae 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(1) 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.
15
(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 absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that 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 mala fide 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.
103. We also give a note of caution to the
effect that the power of quashing a criminal
proceeding should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that too in the
rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be
justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of
the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint and that the extraordinary or
inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the court to act according to its
whim or caprice.”
16
Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. conferred upon the
High Court has to be exercised with care and caution and
only where such exercise of jurisdiction is justified by the
test laid down in the provision itself, then only the
jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. may be exercised.
The said verdict has been given by the Hon’ble apex Court
in the case of D. Venkatasubramaniam & Others Vs. M.K.
Mohan Krishanamachari & Another, reported in (2009) 10
SCC 488. In the said judgment, in para 29 and 32, their
Lordships of the Supreme Court held as follows :
“29. It was observed by this Court on more
than one occasion, that even in public interest
litigation proceedings, appropriate directions
may be issued and the purpose in issuing
such directions is essentially to ensure
performance of statutory duty by the
investigating agency. The duty of the court
in such proceedings is to ensure that the
agencies do their duties in compliance with
law. The inherent power of the High Court is
saved to interfere with the proceedings
pending before a criminal court if such
interference is required to secure the ends of
justice or where the continuance of the
proceedings before a court amounts to abuse
of the process of court. Such a power under
Section 482 of the Code is always available to
the High Court in relation to a matter pending
before a criminal court.
32. It is not necessary that every
investigation should result in arrest, seizure
of the property and ultimately in filing of the
charge-sheet. The police, in exercise of its
statutory power coupled with duty, upon
17investigation of a case, may find that a case is
made out requiring it to file charge-sheet or
may find that no case as such is made out. It
needs no reiteration that the jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code conferred on
the High Court has to be exercised sparingly,
carefully and with caution only where such
exercise is justified by the test laid down in
the provision itself.”
In my opinion, the allegations levelled against
the petitioner in the FIR require thorough
investigation because case of petitioner does not fall
under any of the categories mentioned in the
guidelines given by the Hon’ble apex Court in State
of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (supra). The allegations
levelled against the petitioner in the FIR, on their
face value, require thorough investigation because
the petitioner was public representative and it was
expected from him to act in accordance with law
because in the democracy public representatives are
responsible towards the public and they cannot be
permitted to act contrary to law, so also, they cannot
be permitted to commit any irregularity or illegality.
In this view of the matter, while following the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of D. Venkatasubramaniam & Others Vs. M.K. Mohan
Krishanamachari & Another (supra), so also, while
applying the principle laid down in State of Haryana
18
Vs. Bhajan Lal (supra), I am of the opinion that there
is no force in this petition for quashing the FIR. The
judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner
are altogether different than the facts of this case,
so also, as per the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, interference under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for
quashing the FIR is required to be made in rarest of
rare cases where, upon perusal of the FIR, no
offence is made out.
In view of the aforesaid, this petition under Section
482, Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.
Ojha, a.