Brief Facts
- Both these petitions have been preferred invoking inherent powers of the High Court envisaged under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the FIR No.253/2015 registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur for offences under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471, 193 and 218 IPC so also to quash all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom.
- The chequered history of the case is that the High Court its earlier order dated 04.08.2015 (in SB Criminal Writ Petition No. 5550/2015), observed that a certificate dated 24.07.2015 issued by the Petitioner Sarpanch contained false details regarding the age and number of children of accused Shri Gaurakhi Nagar; hence, the Investigating Officer was directed to register a case against the Sarpanch for producing a false document in judicial proceedings, leading to registration of FIR No. 253/2015 against the Petitioner.
Issues
- Whether the registration of the impugned FIR is arbitrary, ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction as much as can be held to be in clear abuse of process of law?
- Whether, on the face of the allegations in the impugned FIR, a prima facie case is made out showing that the petitioner acted fraudulently or dishonestly with intent to deceive or to obtain any benefit for herself or for Mr. Gaurakhi Nagar?
- Duty of the Trial Court while framing charges against the Accused person.
Held
- The High Court quashed the impugned FIR and criminal proceedings of pending before the Ld. Trial Court. Court held that the IO should have filed the criminal complaint against the Petitioner following the procedure of section 340 CrPC, however, since no cognizable offence was committed the FIR could not have been registered. The findings of the court are as under:
- The High Court while discussing the judgment of Joseph Saivarage A Vs. State of Gujarat [(2011) 7SCC 59] and Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi[(2019) 11 SCC 706] held that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC extend even after the FIR has culminated into a charge-sheet, and that the abuse of process initiated by an FIR becomes aggravated once it results in a charge-sheet. Therefore, the High Court is empowered to intervene to prevent misuse of the judicial process and to secure the ends of justice.
No FIR could have been lodged in reference to offences under section 193 and 466 of IPC
- Undisputedly, for the alleged offence of preparing and producing a false certificate dated 24.07.2015 in the judicial proceedings by the petitioner, no criminal complaint as envisaged under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was filed by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner. Without initiating the criminal proceedings by way of filing a criminal complaint, and without issuance of directions by the judicial Magistrate to initiate investigation under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., neither the FIR impugned could have been registered for offence under Section 193 and 466 IPC nor a police officer could have proceed for investigation of such offences, nor the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of such offence on the basis of investigation report by the police, which is treated as without jurisdiction. Thus, as far as registration of the impugned FIR and initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner through the impugned FIR, to prosecute her for offence under Section 193 and 466 IPC, are arbitrary, ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction as much as can be held to be in clear abuse of process of law.
- The High Court in the order dated 04.08.2015, only issued direction to the Investigating Officer to register the case against the petitioner for producing a false document nothing more than that, therefore, this Court finds that registration of FIR by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner for offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 218 IPC is wholly arbitrary, unwarranted and without jurisdiction.
No offence of cheating and forgery is made out against the Petitioner
- The Court while discussing the essential ingredient to constitute offence under Section 420,467, 468, 471 and 218 IPC held that there is nothing on record either from the allegation of FIR or from the investigation report (charge-sheet) filed against the petitioner to show that petitioner issue a certificate dated24.07.2015 with intention to deceive any person or having any fraudulent or dishonest intention to induce any person to deliver any property or to raise any other benefit for herself or to extend benefit to Mr. Gaurakhi Nagar in any manner.
Charges cannot be mechanically framed against the accused
- On admitted facts of the present case, any of the essential ingredients to constitute such nature of offence against the petitioner is not available on record. In whole of the charge-sheet, no evidence or other material has been pointed out which came on record to book the petitioner for such offences. The order of framing charges by the judicial Magistrate too do not whisper any prima facie satisfaction about availability of any evidence or other material on record to frame charges for such offence.
- Relying on the judgments of M Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR1972SC545 and P.Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2010 SC 663 the Court held that charges must not be framed in mechanical manner just because the charge sheet has been filed.
Relevant Para No.
- 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15,16 and 17