- (1.) This petition has been preferred under S. 482, Cr. P.C. seeking to quash FIR of Case No. 53, dated 4-6-1996 under Ss. 498-A and 406, IPC, police station, Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur and in the alternative to treat the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to give appropriate remedy to the petitioners in the interest of justice.
(2.) The brief facts are that Smt. Rashmi the daughter of Dev Dutt Kalla resident of Jalap Mohalla, Jodhpur was married to petitioner No. 1 Manoj Joshi son of Shri Mandal Dutt Joshi resident of Lodha-Ki-Gali, Veer Mohalla, Jodhpur on 8th February, 1996. It is alleged that she was turned out of her matrimonial home just after two days by the petitioners after treating her with cruelty to satisfy the demand of Rs. 2 lacs for starting business by petitioner No. 1. She again went to petitioners' house but they threatened her and repeated their demand for Rs. two lacs without which she had no place to live with them. She was again turned out on 2-3-96. Her parents went to meet the petitioners on 3-3-96 with her, but the petitioners hurled abuses and said that she could not live there without payment of Rs. 2 lacs. Despite this she again went on 4-3-1996 on the festival of Holi, but again she was treated with cruelty. She was turned out. The petitioners refused to return the dowry articles and the ornaments. All the efforts by the maternal uncle and other relatives failed and the petitioners even threatened to perform second marriage of the petitioner No. 1. Shri Amar Singh and Kamlesh continued to give threatenings to her. She also came to know that her husband petitioner No. 1 Manoj was living in the house of Prem Babu with a girl Parmindra Kaur, a Supervisor in Angan Wari at Deedwana. The maternal uncle and other relatives met the parents of the girl Parmindra Kaur, who knew this fact, but expressed their helplessness. The parents of Parmindra Kaur brought this fact to the notice of Shri Mandal Dutt, the father of her husband, but he did not pay any heed to call back his son. Ultimately her father-in-law Shri Mandal Dutt Joshi admitted on 9-5-96 that his son is not in his control and his son has brought bad name to him in the society. A quarrel also took place between her husband Shri Manoj and father-in-law about relations with ParmindraKaur and during that quarrel her father-in-law even threatened his son that he would commit suicide. Ultimately he committed suicide on the same day. On the above report a case u/Ss. 498-A, 406, IPC, FIR No. 53/96 was registered which now the petitioners have prayed to be quashed through this petition.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant. I have also gone through the documents submitted by the petitioners. Before I deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it will be relevant and useful to consider the powers of this Court to quash FIR or the proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under S. 482, Cr. P.C. This question has engaged the mind of the Apex Court in number of cases. In AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992 Cri LJ 527) State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal, their lordships of the Supreme Court have after considering number of decisions observed as follows in Para 108 : "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 extraordinary power under Art. 226 or the inherent powers u/S. 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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by Police Officers under S. 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S. 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted al legations 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 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 S. 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.";