1. In present application preferred under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have prayed, inter alia, that:
“(a) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside Criminal Complaint being FIR No.I-164 of 2012 registered with Olpad Police Station dated 15.10.2012;
(b) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further investigation in respect to Criminal Complaint being FIR No.I-164 of 2012 registered with Olpad Police Station dated 15.10.2012.”
2. The applicants claim that the criminal complaint being FIR No.I-164/2012 registered with Olpad Police Station may be quashed. This application was posted for hearing on 29th November 2012 when Mr. Kanojiya, learned counsel for petitioner was heard at length. However, due to paucity of time, the order could not be dictated on 29th November 2012. Therefore, the petition was, for the said purpose, adjourned to today. Present order is passed having regard to the submissions made by Mr. Kanojiya, learned counsel for petitioner and the details mentioned in the application and the material available on record.
3. In present complaint, the complainant has alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of Indian Penal Code.
4. On perusal of copy of the complaint placed on record of present application it emerges that the names of applicants are specifically and expressly mentioned in the complaint as the accused persons.
4.1. It also emerges from the complaint/FIR and the record of present application that the complaint/FIR appears to have been filed on 13.10.2012.
4.2. The complainant i.e. respondent no.2 has alleged, inter alia, that the four accused persons have, as part of conspiracy to illegally grab the complainant’s property, forged certain documents and with help of such forged documents illegally got their names entered into the revenue record and the said bogus entries in revenue record which the accused persons got entered into with help of forged documents, have been set aside by the competent revenue authority.
4.3. It also appears from the record that on or around 21.02.2012, the complainant had submitted an application alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 7 and 10 of Land Grabbing Act against present accused persons and had requested to initiate appropriate proceedings against the accused persons.
4.4. It also appears from the record that present applicant no.2 and other two persons had taken out writ petition being Special Civil Application No.6757 of 2012 in connection with the show cause notice issued by the Collector, however, the said petition was sought to be withdrawn and was allowed to be withdrawn under order dated 08.05.2012.
4.5. It also appears from the record that suo motu proceedings were initiated by the competent authority in connection with the revenue entries made in revenue record in relation to the land bearing Block No.66 (i.e. the property in question). The said suo motu proceedings were registered as Case No.RTS/Suo Motu/Atodra/case No.4/2012
4.6. In the said proceedings vide order dated 06.08.2012 the Collector has ordered that the revenue entries Nos. 1890 and 2264 as well as revenue entries Nos. 2512 and 2524 should be set aside.
4.7. It is alleged by the complainant that the applicants (accused persons) got the said entries (which have been ordered to be set aside by the competent authority vide order dated 06.08.2012)entered into the revenue record with the help of disputed documents, which, according to the complainant, are forged and fabricated.
applicants. The applicants have claimed that the order dated 06.08.2012 passed by the Collector has been carried in Revision Application before the Revisional Authority and the said proceedings are pending.
4.9. In background of such facts and while the investigation is in progress, the applicants have preferred present petition praying that the said complaint may be set aside and investigation may be terminated.
5. Thus, by present application the applicants claim that the said complaint should be quashed at its threshold and the investigation in connection with the said complaint should come to an end and until then it should not be allowed to be carried on.
5.1. Differently put, the applicants want that the Court should, at threshold, terminate the investigation in connection with the aforesaid complaint, by exercising powers under Section 482 of the Act.
6. Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted, inter alia, that the complaint has been filed after long lapse of time and that the allegations in the complaint do not constitute the alleged offence and they are in nature of dispute of civil nature and that therefore the complaint may be set aside and investigation may be terminated.
7. It appears from the material available on record that complete set of facts and circumstances are yet to be gathered by the investigating officer.
7.1. The spectrum of facts is still hazy.
8. At the stage of FIR, when the facts and material available on record are hazy and the inquiring officer is still inquiring into the case and details, it would be too premature to scuttle the investigation process.
9. Though the Revision Application against the order passed by the competent revenue authority is pending, the fact remains that the disputed entries (i.e. the entries which allegedly the applicants got entered into revenue record) have been set aside by the revenue authority. However, at this stage, in view of insufficient and inadequate details and materials it is not possible to ascertain as to whether there is abuse of process or not. It is only upon investigation that a clear picture may emerge.
9.1. The Court cannot examine at this stage, the sufficiency and/or reliability of the material with the investigating agency.
10. Recently, in the decision in case between State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan [2012 (1) GLH 875], the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed, inter alia, that:
7. It is true that the inherent powers vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide.
Nevertheless, inherent powers do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whims or caprice. This extra-ordinary power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and as far as possible, for extra-ordinary cases, where allegations in the complaint or the first information report, taken on its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. It needs little emphasis that unless a case of gross abuse of power is made out against those incharge of investigation, the High Court should be loath to interfere at the early/premature stage of investigation.
8. In State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and Ors.(1982) 1 SCC 561: 1982 SCC (Cri) 283, emphasising that the Court will not normally interfere with an investigation and will permit the inquiry into the alleged offence, to be completed, this Court highlighted the necessity of a proper investigation observing thus:
“An investigation is carried on for the purpose of gathering necessary materials for establishing and proving an offence which is disclosed . When an offence is disclosed, a proper investigation in the interests of justice becomes necessary to collect materials for establishing the offence , and for bringing the offender to book. In the absence of a proper investigation in a case where an offence is disclosed , the offender may succeed in escaping from the consequences and the offender may go unpunished to the detriment of the cause of justice and the society at large. Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the court interferes with the proper investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to the serious detriment of the welfare of the society and the cause of the justice suffers. It is on the basis of this principle that the court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed....Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.... If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the court wil l normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and wil l generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence.”(emphasis supplied)
10.1. Earlier, in the decision in case between State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan & Ors. [(1988) 4 SCC 655], the Hon’ble Apex Court observed, with regard to jurisdiction under Section 472, that:
15. It is trite jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., Which saves the inherent power of the High court, to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. In exercising that jurisdiction the High Court would not embark upon and enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. That is the function of the Trial Magistrate when the evidence comes before him.
Through it is neither possible nor advisable to lay down any inflexible rules to regulate that jurisdiction, one thing, however, appears clear and it is that when the High Court is could upon to exercise this jurisdiction to quash a proceeding at the stage of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence the High Court is guided by the allegations, whether those allegations, set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not in law constitute or spell-out any offence and that resort to criminal proceedings would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the court or not.
(emphasis supplied)
16. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K. Rohtagi, it is reiterated: [SCC p.6: SCC (Cri) p.120, para 10] “It is, therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the present Code.”
17. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. P.D.
Jhunjunwala, it was further made clear: [SCC p.10: SCC (Cri) p.124, para 5] “ . . . As to what would be the evidence against the respondents is not a matter to be considered at this stage and would have to be proved at the trial. We have already held that for purpose of quashing the proceedings only the allegations set forth in the complaint have to be seen and nothing further.”(emphasis supplied)
10.2. In the case between Dr.Monika Kumar and Anr. v. State of U.P. And Ors. [AIR 2008 SC 2781], the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed, with regard to jurisdiction under Section 482, that:
30. We may reiterate and emphasise that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire 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 magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v.H.S. Chowdhury (1992) 4 SCC 305; Raghubir Saran Dr.
v.State of Bihar 1964 (2) SCR 336; Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451; and Zhandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and Others v.Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another 2005 (1) SCC 122].
31. In fact, the question of mala fides in a case like the present is not at all relevant. If the complaint which is made is correct and offence has been committed which will have to be established in a court of law, it is of no significance that the complainant is a person who is inimical or that he is guilty of mala fides. If the ingredients which establish the commission of the offence or misconduct exist then, the prosecution cannot fail merely because there was an animus of the complainant or the prosecution against the accused. Allegations of mala fides may be relevant while judging the correctness of the allegations or while examining the evidence. But the mere fact that the complainant is guilty of mala fides, would be no ground for quashing the proceedings. [See State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri (1996) 1 SCC 542; Zhandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another 2005 (1) SCC 122; State of Bihar & Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldanah (1980) 1 SCC 544; State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo 2005 (13) SCC 540]. There may be some exceptions to the said rule but we are not concerned with such a case.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. At this stage, the allegations about malafides cannot be examined. The possibility of conviction or otherwise also cannot be examined at this stage. In this regard it is appropriate at this stage to refer to the observations by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case between State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Goloconda Linga Swamy and another (AIR 2004 SC 3967) in paragraph 8 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:-
“8. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire 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 magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. ....... It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal...........When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding.” (emphasis supplied)
12. At this stage, when the investigation is in progress the Court would not be justified in concluding that there is no material to allow the investigation process to continue and/or to quash the FIR at this stage and thereby to foreclose the investigation. The Court would not be justified in quashing the FIR at this stage on the assumption that it is filed merely on concocted allegations.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court has always put a word of caution with regard to any intervention or interference in the process of investigation. In this regard reference may be made to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri & anr vs. State of Andra Pradesh and anr. (AIR 2008 SC 787) which read thus:-
“30.....In dealing with such cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal process initiated against a person accused of committing offence is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal interest. The people and the society have a legitimate expectation that those committing offences either against an individual or the society are expeditiously brought to trial and, if found guilty, adequately punished. Therefore, while deciding a petition filed for quashing the FIR or complaint or restraining the competent authority from investigating the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint or for stalling the trial of the case, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect. If the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint discloses commission of some crime, then the High Court must keep its hands off and allow the investigating agency to complete the investigation without any fetter and also refrain from passing order which may impede the trial. The High Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations simply because the petitioner alleges malus animus against the author of the FIR or the complainant. The High Court must also refrain from making imaginary journey in the realm of possible harassment which may be caused to the petitioner on account of investigation of the FIR or complaint. Such a course will result in miscarriage of justice and would encourage those accused of committing crimes to repeat the same. However, if the High Court is satisfied that the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence or prosecution is barred by limitation or that the proceedings of criminal case would result in failure of justice, then it may exercise inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”(emphasis supplied)
13.1. Likewise, in the case between S.M. Datta vs. State of Gujarat and anr. [2001 (3) GLH 221] the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the investigation of an offence is within the exclusive domain of the police department and not the law courts and the criminal proceedings, in normal course of event, ought not be scuttled. In paragraphs 5 and 9 of the judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:-
“5......While liberty of an individual are "sacred and sacrosanct" and it is a bounden obligation of the Court to protect them but in the event of commission of a cognizable offence and an offence stand disclosed in the First Information Report, interest of justice requires further investigation by the Investigating Agency. Needless to record that investigation of an offence is within the exclusive domain of the police department and not the law courts. In the event of disclosure of an offence, it is a duty incumbent to investigate into offence and bring the offender to books in order to serve the cause of justice. (emphasis supplied)
9. ..... Criminal proceedings, in the normal course of events ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage, unless the same amounts to an abuse of the process of law. In the normal course of events thus, quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. The genuineness of the averments in the FIR cannot possibly be gone into and the document shall have to be read as a whole so as to decipher the intent of the maker thereof.”
13.2. In the decision in case between Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttranchal & Ors. [AIR 2008 Supreme Court 251], The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:-
“27. The powers possessed by the High Court under section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power 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 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; moreso, when the evidence has 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. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.”
13.3. With reference to the submissions that the alleged offence is about the dispute which, according to the petitioner, is of civil nature, it is relevant to take into consideration the observations by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision in case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. [2010 (1) GLH 184], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that a particular case may involve civil dispute as well as criminal offence and ingredients and elements of civil offence may simultaneously exist when the allegations may appear to be in nature of civil dispute and in such cases the proceedings under criminal law may be continued. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed, inter alia, that:
“8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. (See: G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636 and Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736).” (emphasis supplied)
14. In view of the details and materials available on record, at this stage, it cannot be said that the case has been instituted maliciously or with ill- intention of causing harassment to the applicants and it also cannot be assumed at this stage that the complainant aims to abuse of process of law or that there are no ingredients or elements of criminal offence. The applicants aim at scuttling the investigation at its threshold, whereas, it appears that the investigating officer has yet to investigate and gather necessary details and/or material on basis of which an opinion can be formed and at that stage the investigating officer may file appropriate report.
15. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the applicants have made out a case to interfere with and/or terminate the investigation at its threshold or to stay the investigation.
16. In these circumstances, the Court would be loath, at this stage, to terminate or stay the investigation procedure further.
17. The petitioner has failed to make out any case to interfere with the investigation at this stage so as to terminate or stay the process of investigation at its threshold. In view of the foregoing reasons and in light of the decisions by the Apex Court this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition and to interfere with the investigation process and to quash the complaint being FIR No.I-164/2012 registered with the Olpad Police Station.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed of.
Jani (K.M.THAKER, J.)