Hon'ble Zaki Ullah Khan,J.
Order (Oral) We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.
This writ petition has been filed for quashment of F.I.R. vide Case Crime No. 2737 of 2013, registered under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali, District Lakhimpur Kheri, and for stay of arrest.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that only on the basis of suspicion, petitioner's name was mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also a submission that now the girl has been recovered and she has given her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The said statement, being in Hindi, on reproduction would read as:
"eqv0la0 [email protected] /kkjk [email protected] vkbZ ih lh 3 ¼3½ 12 ,l ,lVh ,DV Fkkuk dksrokyh lnj [khjh vfHk;ksx dh cjken vizZrk Losrk jkt iq=h fojsUnz dqekj fuoklh lyseiqj dksu Fkkuk dksrokyh lnj [khjh dk /kkjk 164 ds C;ku dh udy dqekjh 'osrk jkt us crk;k fd fnukWd 7-8-2013 dks uo cts izkr% ?kj ls Ldwy x;h fQj ogha ls y[kheiqj cl vMMs x;h ogka ls y[kuÅ x;hA y[kuÅ ls cl }kjk cukjl x;h ogkWa dSUV Lvs'ku ij viuh lgsyh dqlqe dks cqyok;k nks ekg dqN fnu ogha dqlqe ds ;gkWa jgh fnukWd 17-10-2013 dks vius dejs ls ckgj fudyh rks pqukj iqfyl us eq>s idM+ fy;k fnukWd 18-10-2013 dks eq>s y[kheiqj dksrokyh ys vk;h lh vks lkgc ds le{k C;ku gqvk iqfyl }kjk esjk esfMdy djk;k x;kA eSa vius ekrk&firk ds lkFk tkuk pkgrh gwWaA"
Learned State Counsel also states that the age of the girl has been found to be 18 years in the medical examination, and does not suggest any act of sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. It is also a submission of learned counsel for State that the prosecutrix has given statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as aforesaid.
In view of the fact that the girl Km. Sweta Raj, daughter of Virendra Kumar, was aged about 18 years on the date of incident; that she had left the house of her parents out of free will and that she has given the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, which does not refer to the name or any role of the petitioner to constitute the offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, as alleged, we are of the considered opinion that investigation as well as prosecution of petitioner will amount to the abuse of the process of the Court.
In the case of Union of India (UOI) and others v. Ramesh Gandhi, reported in (2012)1 SCC 476, it has been held that the Apex Court in a catena of decisions laid down clear principles and indicated the parameters which justify the quashing of an F.I.R. It is well-established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. It also 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. In the case of State of Haryana and ors v. Ch.Bhajanlal and ors, [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] the Apex Court after reviewing large number of cases on the question of the quashing the F.I.R. gave 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:
"(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 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations 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 F.I.R. 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 Section 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 and, (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."
Thus the allegations made in F.I.R. in the teeth of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as above do not constitute any offence to make out a case against the petitioner. As such the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Hence, the F.I.R. dated 8.8.2013 vide Case Crime No. 2737 of 2013, registered under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby quashed and the writ petition is, thus, allowed.
Order Date :- 11.2.2014 Irfan