1. Inherent jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the petitioner herein for quashment of FIR No. 94/2006 dated 19.06.2006 registered with Police Station, Chadoora, District Budgam, Kashmir, for offences under Sections 420/468/471 RPC.
Brief facts of the case :-
2. The factual matrix of the matter, as stated by the petitioner in the petition is that in the month of April, 2003, the petitioner was posted as ARTO for Districts Udhampur and Doda and that the headquarter of both the Districts was at Udhampur with only one staff member being senior assistant, namely, Sh. Pyare Lal in District Doda, who had to frequently visit the Udhampur office along with the record from Doda and that the petitioner being headquartered at District Udhampur could visit only once to District Doda in a month as per different Government orders.
3. It is being stated that in the month of April, 2005, the aforesaid official Pyare Lal while commuting from Udhampur to Doda lost official record specifically comprising of driving licenses of District Doda and that a missing report thereof was lodged with Police Station at Doda on 21.04.2005.
4. It is being stated further in the petition that certain persons from District Budgam appeared to have been arrested and booked for holding and possessing fake driving licenses issued from District Doda during the tenure of the petitioner as ARTO Udhampur/Doda, resulting into registration of the FIR in question.
5. It is further being stated that upon registration of the impugned FIR, the petitioner was at no point of time associated with the investigation of the case or summoned in connection therewith and that in the year 2007, the successor of the petitioner had received a communication from the investigating officer of the FIR and who is stated to have informed the investigating officer vide communication No. 2149/ARTOU dated 02.03.2007 that the record of the driving licenses had been lost by the senior assistant of Doda office, while commuting from Udhampur to Doda for which a missing report had been filed on 21.04.2005 and that a process for retrial of the said missing licenses had been initiated by the office of ARTO Doda/Udhampur.
6. It is being next stated that the petitioner first time received a communication from SHO Police Station, Chadoora, Budgam, seeking some clarification, in response to which it is stated that the petitioner vide letter dated 05.06.2010 brought into the notice of the SHO facts about the missing of the record of licenses and filing of a missing report dated 21.04.2005 and that it had also been replied to the said SHO by the petitioner that resident of District Budgam could also obtain a license from District Doda after swearing an affidavit regarding his address under Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed there under.
7. It is being next stated that after a gap of more than ten years of registration of the impugned FIR, the petitioner received a communication dated 10.11.2016 addressed by Senior Superintendent of Police, District Budgam to Secretary to Government GAD, seeking for whereabouts of the petitioner and his presence and his appearance before Sub-Divisional, Police Officer Charar-e-Sharief, District Budgam in connection with investigation of FIR in question.
8. The petitioner in the instant petition assails the FIR in question, inter-alia, on the grounds that the same does not constitute commission of any offence by the petitioner and that the reading of the FIR does not contain even a whisper that the offences therein were committed by the petitioner. The investigation in the FIR is contended to be a sheer misuse of the process of law.
"• It is further urged in the grounds that the FIR does not constitute the ingredients of the offences against the petitioner and that in view of the information furnished by the successor of the petitioner to the SHO Police Station, Chadoora about the loosing of the record of the licenses and filing of a missing report thereto dated 21.04.2005 in Police Station Doda, as also the process of retrial of said licenses, there was no occasion to continue with the investigation of the FIR in question and that for the last more than ten years after the registration of the FIR, no investigation whatsoever was conducted by the respondent and no material had been brought out against the petitioner.
• It is further urged in the grounds that the alleged offences covered under the FIR have been committed by the residents of Chadoora, District Budgam within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Doda and Police Station, Chadoora, as such, had no jurisdiction to register the FIR or to undertake investigation thereof."
9. Per-contra, the contentions raised and grounds urged by the petitioner in the petition are being resisted and controverted by the respondent in the objections filed to the petition, wherein it is being stated that on 16.06.2006 during vehicle checking at Chadoora, four driving licenses came to be seized by the Police and during investigation of the FIR, IO visited the office of ARTO, Udhampur and that during the course of investigation, statement of the successor of the petitioner (new ARTO) namely, Ashwani Khajuria was recorded and that during the course of the investigation, the petitioner was requested at various times to associate with the investigation which he ignored and that the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Budgam was intimated by the Joint Transport Commissioner vide letter dated 07.03.2007 that the petitioner was served upon a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C, issued by the then investigating officer.
"• It is being stated that during investigation on 16.03.2007, the accused, namely, Pyare Lal was questioned, who deposed that he handed over the stamps to Bhawani Singh Rakhwal, the then ARTO (Udhampur/Doda) and during investigation, the specimen signatures of Pyare Lal were obtained before the Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Srinagar, by the IO concerned and the PSV register already seized in the case in which the hand writings of the accused-Pyare Lal was affixed and seized driving licenses duly signed by the petitioner and the licenses register for the year 2004 in which the hand writing of the petitioner was affixed were submitted to FSL Srinagar for comparison and its opinion and that it opined that similarities were observed on admitted as well as specimen signatures.
• It is being further stated in the objections that the missing report filed by the accused Pyare Lal on 21.04.2005 in Police Station Doda revealed that he was travelling from Udhampur to Doda, carrying official record pertaining to District Doda and it got ascertained that said Pyare Lal was not travelling from Udhampur to Doda and that the Pyare Lal attended the Police Station, Doda on 21.04.2005 and lodged a missing report about the bag containing office files and record send by his office colleague from ARTO Udhampur to Doda in a civil bus and that the veracity of the said report was verified and found to be a suppressed story, cooked in order to suppress the murky deals of the petitioner and the said Pyare Lal.
• It is further stated that during the course of the investigation, Pyare Lal was unable to point out his colleague, who had sent the official record via bus, which got lost allegedly on way to Doda.
• It is further being stated in the objections that the fake licenses were seized within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Chadoora while being used though having been issued in District Doda, as such, Police Station, Chadoora was competent to register the FIR and to investigate the same.
• It is being lastly stated in the objections that the petitioner, prima-facie, committed the offences contained in the FIR along with Pyare Lal, senior assistant and that the plea of the petitioner that he is innocent is baseless."
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Before adverting to the issues involved in the petition, it would be appropriate to refer to the ambit and scope of inherent power vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C (previously, 561-A Cr.P.C), as laid down by the Apex Court from time to time.
A reference to the recent judgment of Apex Court passed in case titled as, “Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315”, would be relevant and germane wherein at Para No. 57, following principles of law have been laid down :-
“57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of King Emperor vs. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad, the following principles of law emerge:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;
iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the „rarest of rare cases‟. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii)Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.”
11. Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal position, the issues/contentions/grounds raised in the instant petition may be adverted to.
"• In so far as the first contention/ground urged by the petitioner is concerned, the principles of law enumerated by the Apex Court in judgment (supra), as contained in Clause (XII) answers the said contention/ground, which risking repetition provides that the first information report is not an encyclopedia, which must disclose all the facts and details related to the offences reported and that when the investigation by the Police is in progress, the Court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR, but Police must be allowed to complete the investigation and that it would be premature to pronounce conclusion based on hazy facts that the FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and above principle of law, the contention/ground (supra) urged by the petitioner cannot, by any sense of imagination, said to be either convincing in law.
• In so far as the next contention/ground urged by the petitioner in the petition is concerned that the FIR does not contain a whisper that the petitioner committed the alleged offences and that the continuation of the investigation would be sheer abuse of process of law also stands answered by the principles of law (supra) laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment (supra) as contained in Clause (V) and (VI) provide that while examining an FIR, quashment of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and that the criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.
This contention/ground urged by the petitioner as well is not entertainable in law in view of above principle of law.
• In so far as the next contention/ground of jurisdiction of the Police Station Chadoora, as urged by the petitioner is concerned, it is admitted fact and is evident from the record that the commission of offences prima-facie consisted of several acts done at different places including Chadoora, where the alleged fake licenses were being used by the offenders and came to be seized by the Police resulting into registration of the impugned FIR. Therefore, in this view of the matter, the Police Station, Chadoora cannot said to be lacking competence and jurisdiction either to register the FIR or to undertake investigation thereof. This contention/ground urged by the petitioner is not, as such, enterainable.
• In so far as the next contention/ground urged by the petitioner that after registration of the impugned FIR, no investigation was conducted by the respondent for more than ten years and that the investigation did not bring out any material against the petitioner is concerned, same is belied by the stand taken by the respondent, wherein it is specifically contended that the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation and that the investigating agency had to seek whereabouts of the petitioner from his higher officials moreso in view of the fact that the petitioner did not choose to controvert the said stand of the respondent by filing any response thereto, as such, the said stand of the respondent cannot be disbelieved or overlooked by this Court."
12. Lastly, the issue that begs the consideration of this Court would be as to whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned FIR and investigations undertaken thereof by the respondent are liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent power enshrined under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This Court in this regard again is inclined to fall back upon the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment (supra) which principle provides that the criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled in the initial stage and quashment of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule and that the power of quashment has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of the rare cases and the inherent power of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and caprice and though the inherent power is very wide but conferment of the same requires the Court to be cautious and casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.
"In view of the aforesaid legal position and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition does not fall with the parameters as laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment (supra) for exercise of inherent jurisdiction, as such, the exercise of inherent power is declined."
13. For what has been observed, considered and analyzed herein above, the instant petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed along with all connected applications.
14. It is made clear that nothing herein above shall be construed to be an expression of any opinion about the guilt or innocence of the petitioner herein.
