Citation : 2004 Local Law (CG) 81
The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to quash an FIR and the resulting criminal proceedings against a photo studio owner accused of assaulting and attempting to disrobe a woman, finding the matter premature for interference under the court’s inherent powers.
The case began on March 29, 2004, when the complainant, a married woman in her thirties, alleged she went to the petitioner’s studio to have photographs taken for a ration card. According to the FIR, the petitioner coaxed her inside, grabbed her hand and pulled at her saree. She says she slapped him several times and left; the petitioner followed and abused and struck her. The FIR was lodged within an hour of the alleged incident, and police promptly recorded statements, sent the woman for medical examination and filed a chargesheet under Sections 354, 294 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner, a press reporter who runs a small studio and is associated with the local press club, sought to quash the FIR and related trial proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His counsel argued he was falsely implicated because of hostile reporting he had done, and offered an alibi that he was watching a cricket match at the time the incident occurred. It was also asserted the complainant had assaulted him earlier and was now misusing the criminal process.
Justice Sinha considered established precedent that a High Court may, in a proper case, quash an FIR or halt an investigation but stressed this power is not to be used indiscriminately. The court set out the accepted preconditions for such interference: an FIR that, even if accepted as true, discloses no cognizable offence; material from investigation that shows no offence was committed; continuation of an investigation that would amount to an abuse of power; or a finding that the investigation was carried out mala fide.
Applying those principles, the court found no basis to interfere. The FIR, the judge noted, is “self speaking”; if taken at face value it describes conduct that would constitute the offences alleged. The subsequent investigation had produced materials consistent with the complaint, and a chargesheet had already been filed. At the stage where trial has not yet begun and charges are yet to be framed, the court said it would be premature to probe the veracity of the prosecution’s case or to accept the petitioner’s explanation. Questions about motive, truthfulness and alibi, the court observed, are properly tested during trial and through cross-examination. Since there was no showing of mala fides in the police action and the statutory preconditions for quashing were not met, the petition was dismissed at the admission stage without requiring notice to the prosecution.
The High Court therefore refused to stop the criminal trial. The order disposes of the petitioner’s motion for urgent hearing and his request for a stay of proceedings, leaving the trial court to take the matter forward, frame charges if appropriate and hear the evidence.
Case Details : Misc. Criminal Case No. 2810 of 2004, Devendra Kumar vs. State of C.G. and Ors. (13.12.2004)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Shrawan Agrawal, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal and Raj Kumar Gupta, Panel Lawyers
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 294; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 323; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 354
Cases Referred:
Vinod Kumar Sethi and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. : AIR 1982 P.&H. 372
======
आपराधिक मामला – प्राथमिकी (FIR) निरस्तीकरण का अनुरोध – भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 (IPC) की धारा 354, 294 और 323 के अंतर्गत दंडनीय अपराध।
न्यायालय ने कहा कि वर्तमान मामले में अभियोजन पक्ष को अभी सक्षम न्यायालय के समक्ष अपना मामला संदेह से परे सिद्ध करना है। साक्ष्यों की सत्यता की जाँच और विश्लेषण का चरण अभी नहीं आया है। इस अवस्था में यदि न्यायालय सम्पूर्ण अभियोजन की कहानी को असत्य या दुर्भावनापूर्ण कहकर खारिज कर दे, तो यह अनुचित और समय से पूर्व होगा।
याचिकाकर्ता की दलीलों पर न्यायालय ने कहा कि इस स्तर पर इन तर्कों पर विचार करना उचित नहीं है और इस प्रकार की स्थिति में उच्च न्यायालय की अंतर्निहित (inherent) शक्तियों का प्रयोग नहीं किया जाना चाहिए। न्यायालय की राय में, ऐसा कोई मामला जो जांच या विचारण की प्रक्रिया पूरी होने के बाद ही तय किया जा सकता है, उसे पूर्व-ट्रायल अवस्था में, दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 की धारा 482 के अंतर्गत, समाप्त नहीं किया जा सकता।
रिकॉर्डों का अवलोकन करने के बाद न्यायालय ने पाया कि इस स्तर पर हस्तक्षेप करने का कोई औचित्य नहीं है। अतः याचिका निरस्त की जाती है।
