S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1009/2003 Muvin vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. with S.B. Criminal Stay Application No. 801/2003 Date of order: 13.04.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. None is present for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mehla, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Manish Gupta, for the respondent no.2. -----
By way of this criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner Muvin has implored to quash the FIR No. 123/2003 of police station Pahadi, District Bharatpur registered in the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
2. Neither the petitioner is present nor his counsel is present in the Court. No reason with regard to their absence has emerged before me, hence, heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as also the learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
3. At the very outset, it is relevant to record that the FIR can be quashed only under a situation if the contents as enumerated in the FIR do not constitute the commission of a cognizable offence. A bare reading of FIR reveals that the contents of the FIR do constitute the offences under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
4. It has been consistently held in catena of cases by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised by the High Court sparingly with circumspection that too in the rarest of the rare cases. It has also been consistently held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that invariably the FIR should not be set at naught and if the facts of the FIR do constitute the commission of a cognizable offence, then by way of passing an order to quash FIR, the justice should not be scuttled at the threshold. I do not think that it is a fit case where the inherent powers can be exercised under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petition ex facie seems to be devoid of substance and deserves to be dismissed.
5. In view of above, the criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being bereft of any merit stands dismissed.
6. Since, the main petition has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI),J.
Mak/-
26