Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3528 (HP)

Vinod Singh v. State of H. P.

2025-09-23

Virender Singh

body2025
Judgment : Virender Singh, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.) for quashing FIR No. 249/2024, dated 7.11.2024, registered under Sections 64 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’), with Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (FIR in questio). 2. According to the petitioner, the said FIR has falsely been registered against him, as he has nothing to do with the offence, for which, he has been named and arrested, as accused. 3. According to the petitioner, he owns a Brezza car, bearing registration No. JK08M-9312. On 5.11.2024, petitioner had informed Dinesh Kumar that he would be going to Pathankot, for servicing of the car, upon which, Dinesh Kumar requested him to take him also, on the pretext that he wish to meet the prosecutrix at Gangath. 4. As per the case of the petitioner, he was not familiar with the prosecutrix, but accused Dinesh was in touch with her, through mobile and social media platform. Both of them were stated to be in relationship, and going to get married soon. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that he and Dinesh had gone to Pathankot for servicing of the car and Dinesh Kumar apprised him that the prosecutrix would meet him after her computer classes. Accused Dinesh Kumar and the prosecutrix planned to meet near Bheda Ground around 1:30 p.m. Since, the petitioner was not familiar with the location, as such, on the direction of accused Dinesh Kumar, and on the basis of Google map, he reached at the spot, where prosecutrix came and thereafter, both of them had travelled some distance by car. Thereafter, accused Dinesh Kumar requested the petitioner to stop the car and accused Dinesh Kumar and the prosecutrix alighted down from the car, on the pretext that they wish to walk for some time, as they want to discuss their future plans. 6. It is the further case of the petitioner that after some time, the accused and the prosecutrix came back and the prosecutrix requested the petitioner to drop her near her house. After dropping the prosecutrix, accused Dinesh Kumar came back, and on their way back home, they met with an accident. Consequently, petitioner left the car at Jammu Motor Garage in Kathua for repairs. After dropping the prosecutrix, accused Dinesh Kumar came back, and on their way back home, they met with an accident. Consequently, petitioner left the car at Jammu Motor Garage in Kathua for repairs. Later on, the police party arrested him on 24.12.2024. It is only then he came to know about the registration of the FIR in question, against him. 7. The petitioner has pleaded that he has no role to play in the said crime, as he had only driven the vehicle and has no connection whatsoever with the crime in question. 8. After conclusion of the investigation, the Police has filed the charge sheet, which is pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 9. On the basis of above factual position, the petitioner has prayed that the FIR in question, registered against him, is nothing, but abuse of process of law, as he has no role to play in the crime. 10. Highlighting the above factual position, a prayer has been made to quash the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending in the learned trial Court. 11. When, put to notice, the Police filed the status report/reply, disclosing therein, that on 7.11.2024, a complaint was received in Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., upon which, the FIR was registered and respondent No. 3 was medico- legally examined, on 7.11.2024. On 8.11.2024, her statement, under Section 183 of BNSS was recorded by producing her before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. During investigation, petitioner and his co-accused were found to be indulged in the crime in question and Section 61(2) of the BNS was added. 12. After registration of the FIR, Police has filed the charge sheet, which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 13. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the FIR in question, mainly on the ground that from the bare reading of the FIR, as well as, report under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C., no case is made out, against him. 14. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Javed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has prayed that no iota of evidence was found against the petitioner, during investigation. P.C., no case is made out, against him. 14. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Javed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has prayed that no iota of evidence was found against the petitioner, during investigation. As such, a prayer has been made to allow the petition by quashing the FIR, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court. 15. Per contra, Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, learned Addl. A.G. appearing for the respondent-State has highlighted the role attributed to the petitioner and prayed that proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground, as taken by the petitioner. Hence, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. 16. Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., has elaborately been discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the year 1992, in the lead case titled as State of Haryana Vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal & Others, 1992 CrLJ, 527, in which, the Hon’ble Apex Court has formulated the guidelines for exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Relevant paragraph 107 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give 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, though it 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. 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 FIR. 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 FIR. 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 with 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 FIR 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. 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.” 17. This view has again been reiterated by a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 315. Relevant paragraph 38 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- 38. This view has again been reiterated by a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 315. Relevant paragraph 38 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- 38. In the case of Golconda Lingaswamy (supra), after considering the decisions of this  ourt in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra) and other decisions on the exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in paragraphs 5, 7 and 8, it is observed and held as under: “5. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely: (i)    to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii)    (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal, possess in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly,  carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly,  carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. 7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless  harassment. Court  should  be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless  harassment. Court  should  be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death….. 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. 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 proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [ (1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC 892 ] and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [ AIR 1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 1] .] 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 a 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. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a 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 cognisance 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. The complaint/FIR has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the FIR that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/FIR is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. 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 themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding.” 18. In this case, criminal machinery swung into motion, on the basis of complaint, made by respondent No. 3, who has lodged the FIR in question by alleging the following facts: 19. On 07.11.2024, the prosecutrix, along with her mother, appeared before the Police and made a complaint, mentioning therein, that she is resident of the address, as mentioned, in the complaint. 19.1. According to her, her father is a labourer by profession. For the last four months, from the date of making the complaint, she is allegedly learning computer at Gangath. On 06.11.2024, after attending the computer classes, the prosecutrix was on her way to her home, on foot. 19.2. 19.1. According to her, her father is a labourer by profession. For the last four months, from the date of making the complaint, she is allegedly learning computer at Gangath. On 06.11.2024, after attending the computer classes, the prosecutrix was on her way to her home, on foot. 19.2. At about 1.30 p.m., in the afternoon, when, the prosecutrix reached a secluded place near Bera Ground, then a J.K. number car came there and the driver had stopped the car near the prosecutrix. Another person was sitting in the car, who had snatched the phone from the prosecutrix. 19.3. The said boy was earlier known to the prosecutrix, as, he was her friend through instagram, a social media App. The prosecutrix used to talk with said boy on instagram. 19.4. The said boy disclosed his name as Dinesh @ Sunny, resident of Vasauli, Jammu and Kashmir. Not only this, the said boy has also given his mobile number to her, through which, they remained in touch with each other. 19.5. The prosecutrix has further alleged in the complaint that Dinesh @ Sunny dragged her inside the car and directed the driver to drive the car towards her house. When the said act of accused Dinesh was resisted by the prosecutrix, her mouth was gagged and the car was driven towards Forest side at secluded place, where, accused Dinesh @ Sunny directed the driver to park the car on the side of the road. 19.6. Consequently, the driver acted on the direction of accused Sunny. Thereafter, accused Sunny dragged the prosecutrix out of the car and took her towards the bushes on the side of the road. She was raped twice. Although, the prosecutrix raised alarm, but, no habitation was there, as such, no one could hear her alarm. 19.7. Thereafter, accused Sunny made her to sit in the car and directed the driver to take the car to Tallu. Consequently, the driver drove the car towards Tallu. One kilometer short to Tallu, Sunny threw the prosecutrix out of the car. Thereafter, the driver took vehicle towards Tallu. Sunny had allegedly recorded the Video. 19.8. After reaching home, the prosecutrix disclosed this fact to her mother. Thereafter, she has made the complaint 19.9. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the FIR, in question, and the police machinery swung into motion. 19.10. Thereafter, the driver took vehicle towards Tallu. Sunny had allegedly recorded the Video. 19.8. After reaching home, the prosecutrix disclosed this fact to her mother. Thereafter, she has made the complaint 19.9. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the FIR, in question, and the police machinery swung into motion. 19.10. During investigation, on the identification of the prosecutrix, the spot was visited and the statements of witnesses under Section 180 of the BNSS were recorded. Thereafter, team of DFU, Nurpur, inspected the spot and physical evidence, so found, was also taken into consideration. 19.11. Thereafter, the prosecutrix has also handed over her wearing apparels, which were worn by her at the relevant time. The prosecutrix was also medico-legally examined and physical evidence, collected by the doctors, was taken into possession. 19.12. On 08.11.2024, the prosecutrix was produced before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, where, her statement under Section 183 of BNSS was recorded. 19.13. During investigation, the statement of prosecutrix was recorded in which, she had disclosed that the vehicle used by accused Dinesh was having registration No.JK08M-9312, which was being driven by Vinod Singh (petitioner). 19.14. On 24.12.2024, accused Dinesh Singh was nabbed. The involvement of Vinod Singh (petitioner) was found, in the crime, in question, as such, Section 61(2) of the BNSS was added, in this case. 19.15. It is the further case of the police that during investigation, it was found that accused Dinesh Singh used car No.JK08M-9312 and the said car was being driven by Vinod Singh (petitioner), at the relevant time. 19.16. Petitioner, along with Dinesh Singh, after hatching conspiracy came to Gangath, where accused Dinesh Singh, allegedly raped the prosecutrix twice. Petitioner Vinod Singh was having the full knowledge of the fact that accused Dinesh Singh is going to commit the said crime. 20. In this case, respondent No. 3 (prosecutrix) was also produced before the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra, where her statement, under Section 183 of the BNSS was recorded. In her statement, nothing has been alleged against the petitioner, except that he was driving the vehicle, in which, the prosecutrix was allegedly raped. 21. Similarly, in the FIR, as well as, the status report, as reproduced above, no specific allegations have been levelled, against the petitioner. 22. In her statement, nothing has been alleged against the petitioner, except that he was driving the vehicle, in which, the prosecutrix was allegedly raped. 21. Similarly, in the FIR, as well as, the status report, as reproduced above, no specific allegations have been levelled, against the petitioner. 22. In the supplementary statement, recorded on 8.12.2024, respondent No. 3 has completely exonerated the petitioner by stating that neither the driver (petitioner) has misbehaved with her nor done anything wrong with her. However, in the supplementary statement, recorded on 19.12.2024, she has made a statement, disclosing therein, that both the persons (petitioner and his co-accused Dinesh Kumar) in connivance with each other, had committed rape on her. However, no specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. 23. At the time of deciding the petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS, the evidence so collected by the prosecution, is to be considered, as it is, without considering the defence of the petitioner. 24. The mere fact that in the supplementary statement, the prosecutrix has stated that both the accused persons, as afore-mentioned, have connived with each other and committed wrong act with her, without her consent, is too short to decline the relief to the petitioner. 25. Considering the above facts, the petitioner is able to make out a case for exercising the powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, in his favour, by quashing the FIR, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the Court of learned trial Court. Ordered accordingly. 26. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.