P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Mushtaq Shah and Ors. Vs. State and Ors. - (High Court of Jammu and Kashmir) (17 Oct 2018)

FIR can only be quashed in order to prevent abuse of process of law or to otherwise secure the ends of justice

MANU/JK/0915/2018

Criminal

In the instant petition filed under Section 561-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the Petitioners seek quashment of FIR registered at Police Station against the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 for commission of offences under Sections 366, 376 and 343 Ranbir Penal Code, (RPC). Issue involved in present matter is whether FIR registered against Petitioner is liable to be quashed.

The law with regard to quashing of FIR while exercising power under Section 561-A of CrPC is now well settled. FIR can only be quashed in order to prevent abuse of process of law or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The expression ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of any Court are intended to work out either when an innocent person is unjustifiable subjected to an undeserving prosecution or if an ex-facie all merited investigation is throttled at the threshold without allowing the police to collect the evidence in order to know about truthfulness of allegations levelled in FIR. Inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. These powers cannot be used to stifle the legitimate prosecution/investigation.

Bare perusal of allegations levelled in FIR and facts which have emerged during investigation, cognizable offences of serious in nature have been made out against the Petitioners; the investigation so far has been conducted prima facie shows involvement of Petitioners in commission of crime.

The disputed question of facts as averred in present petition cannot be appreciated for quashing the FIR. Police has statutory duty to investigate the cognizable offences in terms of Section 156 of CrPC; this duty cannot be scuttled, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 561-A of CrPC. The defense of accused cannot be considered at this stage. The FIR need not be encyclopedia of all relevant facts and more incriminating material will be unfolded only during investigation. FIR cannot be placed on the same pedestal as the charge; in case a FIR showing facts which makes out cognizable offence is nipped in the bud even before the entire facts are un-raveled, incalculable harm might be caused by depriving the police of their right to collect evidence.

All the pleas taken in the petition and that argued may be relevant for discharge of accused, but not for quashing the FIR, because all the pleas are pertaining to appreciation of facts. Present Court cannot appreciate the facts in present petition as to whether case under Section 376 of RPC is made out or not. Petition dismissed.

Tags : FIR   COGNIZANCE   QUASHING OF  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved