The Ratio of This Judgement Has Been OverRuled By SupremeCourt Rupali Devi Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Bench: JUSTICE R.R. Prasad
Manoj Kisku Vs. State Of Jharkhand & Ors. On 18 March 2009
Law Point:
Article 226 — Extraordinary jurisdiction — Exercise of — Quashing of FIR — Justified if allegations made in FIR do not constitute any offence.
JUDGEMENT
1. This writ application has been filed for quashing the First Information Report itself of Ranga P.S. Case No. 61 of 2007 instituted against the petitioner and others under Sections 493, 498A, 384, 467, 468, 316, 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It appears that the complainant Hopen Mayee Kisku lodged the complaint, bearing complaint case No. 406 of 2007 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal alleging therein that the petitioner on the false pretext of marrying her had sex with her and went on having sex after making her to believe that he is her husband, as a result of which, she became pregnant.
3. Further case is that when she came to the house of the petitioner, the petitioner as well as other family members started forcing her to have miscarriage of the pregnancy and for that she was also assaulted by them. The said complaint was sent to the concerned police station for its institution and, accordingly, the case was instituted under Sections 493, 498A, 384, 467, 468, 316, 511 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereupon, this writ application was filed for quashing the First Information Report of that case on the ground that the informant/complainant had also filed similar case against Marang Kora Hembrom which had been instituted as Ranga P.S. Case No. 34 of 2007 under Sections 376, 493 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. However, from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it appears that allegation made in the First Information Report was found to be true in course of investigation whereas other case lodged against one Marang Kora Hembrom had been lodged factitiously at the instance of the petitioner.
5. However, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter has been compromised in between the parties and the informant is no more interested in prosecuting this case and this fact has been stated in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 also admits that the matter has been compromised in between the parties and in this situation, the prayer was made to quash the First Information Report.
7. Both the grounds on which First Information Report has been sought to be quashed are not tenable.
8. It has been well settled that the Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction can quash the First Information Report if the allegation made in the First Information Report does not constitute any offence but here the case is otherwise wherein the allegations made in the First Information Report do constitute cognizable offence though according to the parties, the matter has been compromised but on that ground, First Information Report constituting offence cannot be quashed.
9. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Hence, this writ application is dismissed.
Application dismissed.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment