1. Heard Mr. Shah, learned advocate for petitioner and Ms. Archna Raval, APP for respondent.
2. In present petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:
“9(B)YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash the FIR, being No.108/2012 dated 27.09.2012, registered at Gondal City Police Station, at Annexure “A” to the petition, qua the present applicant; in the interest of justice.”
premises was torched and put to fire. In the said premises, Government office including the office of NAREGA Scheme was functioning. As a result of the fire, Government properties including furniture and official record is said to have been destroyed.
4. It is in connection with the said incident that the FIR has been filed.
5. The police is investigating the incident and investigation is in progress.
6. It is claimed that the name of the petitioner does not appear in the FIR and any allegation has not been made against the petitioner in FIR which the petitioner seeks to be quashed. However, he apprehends that the investigating officer may take action, including arrest, against him and that therefore petitioner has preferred present petition.
7. According to the learned counsel for petitioner the apprehension is based in view of the affidavit filed by the investigating officer in certain proceedings before the learned trial Court.
8. It has emerged from the record as well as from the submissions by learned counsel for petitioner that on account of such apprehension viz. that he may be arrested or such other action may be taken against the petitioner, he had taken out application seeking anticipatory bail, which, in the first instance, came to be rejected by learned trial Court, and subsequently, when the petitioner took out application seeking anticipatory bail before this Court, it was withdrawn.
9. In the result, though the anticipatory bail applications preferred by the petitioner have failed before the trial Court (due to rejection/dismissal of the application) and before this Court, (in view of withdrawal of the application) and though his name is not even mentioned in the FIR. Still the petitioner seeks that the FIR may be quashed at his behest.
10. Moreover, on one hand petitioner’s name is not mentioned in the FIR and on the other hand any action including action of arrest does not appear to have been taken against the petitioner and at this stage investigation is still in progress. Despite such facts, the petitioner wants that the FIR may be quashed.
10.1. Such relief at the behest of the person whose name is not mentioned in FIR cannot be granted. An FIR can not be quashed at the behest of third party or at the instance of a person who is not the accused.
10.2. Even the interim relief as prayed for cannot be granted.
10.3. In this context a useful reference can be made to the decision in case between Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors.[2010 (1) G.L.R. 571], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that a petition at the instance of the person who is not one of the accused persons in the FIR ought not be ordinarily entertained. It is observed, inter alia, that:
“12. From the final directions, given by the High Court in the impugned judgment, it is evident that the learned Single Judge has quashed the FIR registered as II-C.R. No. 3131 of 2008 with Deesa City Policy Station and the proceedings pursuant thereto including the orders for interim custody of the animals and the Revision Application preferred therefrom. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6, who had filed writ petition before the High Court, are not accused. Therefore, they could not have prayed for and, in fact, have not prayed to quash the FIR registered as II-C.R. No. 3131 of 2008 with Deesa City Police Station and the proceedings pursuant thereto. Prayer for quashing the FIR could have been made only by the accused, who have been named above. But none of them had chosen to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court either under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of the Constitution to get quashed the FIR registered as II-C.R. No. 3131 of 2008 with Deesa City Police Station against them and the proceedings pursuant thereto. The quashing of FIR at the instance of third parties is unknown to law. Further, it is well settled that neither power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 nor jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised by the High Court to quash the complaint if prima facie commission of offences is made out......” (emphasis supplied)
10.4. Furthermore, if the relief as prayed for is entertained and granted then it would amount to indirectly/impliedly granting anticipatory bail and/or protection in nature of anticipatory bail, which cannot be granted by invoking and exercising inherent power under Section 482 of the Code.
11. In present case, it is pertinent that the petitioner’s request for anticipatory bail has not been entertained by the learned trial Court and even by this Court.
11.1. Thus, this is petitioner’s indirect attempt to get the relief which he could not get directly.
12. Besides this, as mentioned earlier, the investigation is still in progress. Thus, if at this stage, the request as prayed for is considered, it would amount to interfering with the investigation process.
12.1. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code is required to be exercised very cautiously and not for the purpose of scuttling the legitimate investigation process.
13. In the case between S.M. Datta v. 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.
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.”
13.1. Hence, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation process and that too at the behest of a person whose name does not figure as accused in the FIR.
14. For the foregoing reasons and in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is not inclined to entertain present petition. The learned counsel for petitioner has failed to make out any strong and exceptional reasons or circumstances to entertain the petition by a person who is not one of the accused persons in the FIR.
Hence, the petition is not entertained and is accordingly disposed of.
Jani
(K.M.THAKER, J.)