Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Himachal Pradesh FIR must disclose a cognizable offence has been committed. If that condition is satisfied, investigation must go on MANU/HP/0879/2018 - (12 Jul 2018) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Carzonrent India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The Petitioners are aggrieved by the registration of FIR against them in Police Station under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and have filed the present petitions for quashing of the aforesaid FIR. The Petitioners have sought for quashing of the FIR on various grounds like; the offence being purely of a civil nature, the police at Kangra had no territorial jurisdiction to register the FIR and that the contents of the FIR are false and fabricated apart from being vexatious and, therefore, the FIR should be quashed. 
The main plank of the argument of learned counsel for the Petitioner(s) for quashing of the FIR is that the same is the counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the Petitioner-Company whereby it has instituted a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against Respondent No. 2, which is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 
The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC even though are very wide but it is because of the very plenitude of the power that requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power cannot and should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Undoubtedly, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. 
It is only when on reading the FIR, a sheer absurdity in allegations is noticed and when no prima facie cognizable case is made out on its mere reading due to absurdity in allegations or when facts disclose prima facie cognizable case, then the Court may, in appropriate case, consider it proper to quash the FIR. It is settled that the condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under Section 157 of the CrPC is that the FIR must disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on. The Court then has no power to stop the investigation, for to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences. 
The Petitioner has prematurely approached present Court for quashing the FIR and it would, therefore, not be appropriate for present Court to quash the FIR without proper investigation being conducted by the police. In the given circumstances, it would not be appropriate for this Court, at this stage when the investigation is yet to be completed, to comment upon the merits of the case. However, we may prima facie set out certain reasons as to why at this stage, we restrain ourselves from interfering or quashing the FIR. 
Admittedly, the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is information of a cognizable offence given under Section 154 of the CrPC. The legislature in its wisdom under the provisions of the Code has given limited/restrictive power to the Court to intervene at the stage of investigation by the police. Investigation is the exclusive domain of the police. 
Majority of the allegations, save and except the agreement in question, as set out by the Petitioner, have been denied by the respondents and such denial is not just an evasive denial but is backed by certain explanation as also supporting material. The allegations regarding respondent No. 2 having visited Delhi and handed over the cheques on 05.04.2017, which have been denied by respondent No. 2 are otherwise contrary to the case set up by the petitioner in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and is, therefore, a matter that is required to be thoroughly investigated. 
Further, present Court can quash the FIR only if it comes to a conclusion that, the continuing investigation in the case would amount to abuse of the process of Court. However, as noticed above, this is not the factual situation obtaining in this case and, therefore, present Court cannot abridge the investigation, which is indeed required to ascertain factual assertion made in the FIR. Accordingly, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are consequently dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : FIR, Registration, Quashing of</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>