Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing of FIR No.16/2008 dated 17.02.2008 lodged at Police Station, Jhanwar, District Jodhpur for the offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and section 3(1)iv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the proceedings initiated against him for the offence under section 175 IPC and pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a false FIR has been lodged against the petitioner as he has not committed any of the offences as alleged in the FIR No.16/2008. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the police, after thorough investigation in the FIR, had proposed to file negative final report but later on, with the direction of the trial court, the police has started reinvestigation and now wants to arrest the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that with the allegation of forging of power of attorney by the petitioner, the FIR in question has been lodged against the petitioner due to malafides.
(3.) So far jurisdiction of this Court in the matter of quashing of the FIR is concerned, Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 . has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing an FIR lodged at any police station while exercising the powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and held as under:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 F.I.R. 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 complaint 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 F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.";