S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.134/2010
Deen Dayal vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Dated : 25.01.2010
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI
Mr. S.K. Saksena, for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State.
This order governs the disposal of the criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the accused-petitioner Deen Dayal praying to quash FIR No. 58/2009 registered in the offences under Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC at police station Mahila Thana, Ajmer. It has also been prayed to quash the charge-sheet dated 29th May, 2009 and the order of taking cognizance dated 4th June, 2009 rendered in criminal case no. 488/2009 State of Rajasthan vs. Deendayal by the Additional Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Ajmer.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of cognizance on the ground that Deendayal was not in relation to non-petitioner no.2 Smt. Sushila Devi nor did he fall in the ambit of ‘relatives of the husband of a woman’ as contemplated under Section 498-A of IPC. He has cited one judgment delivered by the Honble Apex Court in the case of U.Suvetha vs. State by Inspector of Police and Anr. reported in 2009 Cri.L.J. 2974 in support thereof.
4. The accused-petitioner undeniably and undisputably happens to be the husband of non-petitioner no.2 Smt. Sushila Devi. Learned counsel himself has called Smt. Sushil Devi to be the wife of Shri Deendayal in his petition. Despite there being such an established relationship of a wife and husband between the petitioner and non-petitioner no.2, I have failed to unearth the reason as to why the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of U.Suvetha (supra)? What was twitching in the mind of learned counsel at the time of citing this judgment, is beyond my imagination? However, the argument of the learned counsel is found to be totally misconceived, misplaced, baseless, groundless and having no legs to stand. In the case of U. Suvetha (supra), the Honble Apex Court has held that girl friend or concubine of husband is not the ‘relative’ of the husband of a woman. Neither the petitioner is a girl friend nor is he a concubine, rather he is the husband of Smt. Sushila Devi, then what nexus, this cited judgment has got with the petition at hand, remains unanswered. So far as the impugned order dated 4th June, 2009 is concerned, it is found to be just and apt and does not suffer from any infirmity.
5. It is also noticed that one FIR No. 58/2009 came to be registered in the offences under Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC with the police station Mahila Thana, Ajmer. After completion of investigation, the police submitted the police report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. in the court and the accused-petitioner Deendayal was put to trial for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323 and 325 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed to quash the FIR as also the charge-sheet filed by the police after completion of investigation.
6. In the case of State of West Bengal vs. Swapan Kumar Guha reported in (1982) 1 SCC 561, Honble Apex Court held thus:-
if the FIR does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the court would be justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of information as laid or received.
7. The Honble Apex court further held that :-
65, ……the legal position is well settled. The legal position appears to be that if an offence is disclosed, the court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed; if, however, the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted. …. Once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the interests of justice. If, however, no offence is disclosed, an investigation cannot be permitted, as any investigation, in the absence of any offence being disclosed, will result in unnecessary harassment to a party, whose liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for nothing. The liberty and property of any individual are sacred and sacrosanct and the court zealously guards them and protects them. An investigation is carried on for the purpose of gathering necessary materials for establishing and proving an offence which is disclosed. When an offence is disclosed, a proper investigation in the interests of justice becomes necessary to collect materials for establishing the offence, and for bringing the offender to book. In the absence of a proper investigation in a case where an offence is disclosed, the offender may succeed in escaping from the consequences and the offender may go unpunished to the detriment of the cause of justice and the society at large. Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the court interferes with the proper investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to the serious detriment of the welfare of the society and the cause of justice suffers. It is on the basis of this principle that the court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed. …..
8. In the case of Pappu lal Muthiah vs. State reported in (2006) 7 SCC 296, the Honble Apex Court has observed that:-
.such a power does not come within the purview of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Investigation of an offence is a statutory power of the police. The State in its discretion may get the investigation done by any agency unless there exits an extraordinary situation.
9. Thus, it is very well settled by the catena of judgments delivered by the Honble Apex Court that the investigation is an exclusive domain of police and the courts usually are not required to interfere with the investigation of a case. The FIR is liable to be quashed only in a situation, where the materials and facts as enumerated in the FIR do not disclose any commission of offence. In the case at hand, the police lodged the FIR and thereafter, on completion of investigation, a police report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. has already been filed in the court and the accused has been sent to trial. I do not find any reason to invoke the powers conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and charge-sheet. The aforesaid prayer by way of criminal misc. petition seems to be absurd as also ridiculous. The petition is totally devoid of force and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are totally untenable.
10. For the reasons state above, the criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner Deendayal, being bereft of merits deserves to be dismissed and thus, stands dismissed at the threshold.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI),J.
Mak/-