Decided on June 12,2013

Smt. Farikan Appellant
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents


U.C. Dhyani, J. - (1.) THE applicant, by means of present application/petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to set aside the impugned cognizance order dated 07.10.2008, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Dehradun in criminal case No. 1292 of 2008, State vs. Sajid and others, under Sections 323, 406, 427, 504, 506, 120B of IPC, as also the chargesheet dated 09.08.2006, submitted in case crime No. 74 of 2008. A prayer has also been made to quash the entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case pending before selfsame court. An FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2 against six accused persons, including the applicant in police station Sahaspur, District Dehradun on 04.05.2008, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 427 of IPC. After the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against five accused persons, including the applicant in respect of selfsame offences. Cognizance on the said chargesheet was taken. Aggrieved against the said order, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was moved by Smt. Farikan only.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant drew attention of this Court towards the mutual settlement arrived at between respondent No. 2 and Sajid (husband of Farikan) and Farikan. It was stated in said mutual settlement dated 14.05.2008 that a dispute regarding some property, which was going on between the parties, has been settled with the intervention of some persons of the locality. The settlement was reduced to writing on the said date i.e. 14.05.2008 (copy annexed as Annexure -2). Learned counsel for the applicant also drew attention of this Court towards the extract of the Case Diary dated 26.05.2008, in which the settlement arrived at between the parties was enclosed. Annexure No. 3 to the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is the copy of sale deed executed by Smt. Farikan in favour of Athar Fazal, nominee of respondent No. 2. This fact was admitted by the respondent No. 2 in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., copy of which is enclosed as Annexure -6. The statement of respondent No. 2 was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 05.05.2008, 16.05.2008 and 02.07.2008. A compromise was again entered into between the parties (Sajid and Smt. Farikan, on the one hand and Mohd. Zaid Rafi Ansari, on the other hand), on 15.05.2008. In the said compromise the effect of execution of sale deed by Farikan in favour of nominee of the respondent No. 2 was admitted. The respondent, in para No. 10 of the counter affidavit admitted that a compromise took place between respondent No. 2, husband of the applicant and the applicant herself. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and therefore prayed that this Court should intervene in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the affidavit filed on behalf of Farikan on 28th December 2008 remains unrebutted. Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986, has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Those principles can be summarised as follows: 1. Though there ace no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 CrPC but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 CrPC should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 2. The court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basis ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the court may interfere. 3. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence.
(3.) THE High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.