BHANWAR SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. praying for quashing of the First Information Report (Annexure-1).
(2.) SHORTLY stated, the petitioner's case is that Pramod Kumar, son of the petitioners 3 and 4 was married to the informant Basant Lal's daughter Anita in the month of July, 2000. No dowry was demanded either at the time of marriage or thereafter. Pramod Kumar and Anita could not carry harmonious relationship between the two. Their nuptial knot started slacking due to the unceremonious interference of Anita's Jija (sister's husband), namely Pyare Lal, who started visiting Anita and he carried on with his visits despite restrictions imposed by Pramod Kumar. At times, Pyare Lal misbehaved with the petitioners. Pramod Kumar's complaint lodged with the police regarding misbehaviour of Pyare Lal did not move the police to take any action. Pyare Lal became so devil that he came to the petitioner's house on June 28, 2002 and carried away forcibly Anita extending threats to the petitioners and their other family members of dire consequences. The petitioner No. 3 was also abused and beaten by Pyare Lal. Her injuries were examined in the Government Hospital. In order to neutralize the petitioner's complaint, Anita's father Basant Lal lodged a false report (under challenge) reciting therein that the petitioners demanded from his daughter dowry comprising Hero Honda motorcycle and a refrigerator and when the informant's son and son-in-law (Pyare Lal) requested for Anita being sent with them, the petitioners allegedly indulged in violence by beating Anita and also misbehaved with Pyare Lal and the informant's son. This occurrence was said to have taken place at 10.30 a.m. on 28-6-2002. As the entire story of alleged demand of dowry and causing injuries to Anita and others is concocted, the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr PC. The crucial question is as to whether a petition under Section 482 Cr PC for quashing of a First Information Report is maintainable ?
(3.) SUPPORTING his contention that a petition under Section 482 Cr PC is entertainable by the High Court, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a Supreme Court decision, “M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, 1998(36) ACC 20 (SC).” Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in this decision that nomenclature under which a petition is filed is not quite relevant and that does not debar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses unless there is special procedure prescribed and such procedure is mandatory. If in a case, the Court finds that the appellants could not invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court can certainly treat the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but it cannot be lost sight of that the provisions exist in the Code of revision and appeal but some time for immediate relief, Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 may have to be resorted to for correcting grave errors but the condition for filing such petition is that the petitioner must establish that even on the face of the First Information Report or the complaint, no case is made out. While dealing this issue, the Hon'ble Court referred to an earlier decision in, ”State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1990(2) JIC 997 (SC) : 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335", wherein some guidelines were laid to exercise extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr PC. These guidelines may be enumerated as follows: “(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 complainant 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. (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 152(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.” ;