Ranveer and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

B.A. Zaidi, J.—The facts relating to this application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. are that some agricultural land was allegedly purchased by Rakosh Devi wife of applicant-accused Ranveer in the month of February 2004 by a registered sale deed executed by Tukki Singh, father-in-law of informant opposite party No. 2 Smt. Bismillah, proceedings u/s 145, Cr. P.C. with regard to this land are on the way between opposite party No. 2 and the present accused-applicants and Rakosh Devi before Sub-Divisional Magistrate Meerut.

Subsequently, Smt. Bismillah lodged a first information report at Police Station Kharkhauda district Meerut u/s 364, 307, 504 and 506, I.P.C. against the present applicants alleging that in February 2004, they kidnapped her father-in-law and got a sale-deed of 10 Bigha agricultural land clandestinely executed in the name of Rakosh Devi, on 20.11.2006, the applicants-accused came carrying country made pistols with them and asked her and her son Akram to desist with Pairawi before Sub-Divisional Magistrate which Akram refused. The applicants thereafter fired upon Akram, who had a hair escape and threatened them with dire consequences.

That is what brings the applicants here u/s 482, Cr. P.C. praying for quashing the proceedings in Crl. Case No. 3411 of 2007, State v. Ranveer and Anr., under Sections 364, 307 and 504, I.P.C. pending before IV Additional Civil Judge, Meerut against them.

Heard Sri Avnish Kumar Srivastava, advocate for the applicants and Sri Mohammad Israil Siddiqui, Additional Government Advocate for the State.

The mere fact that the Police have submitted charge-sheet in relation to the execution of sale deed which was registered three years earlier cannot by itself be a ground for quashing the charge-sheet because the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of D. Vengara Naidu v. Dora Swamy Naidu and Ors., 2007 (2) Supreme 661 (Crl. Appeal No. 276 of 2007 decided on 27.2.2007) is that an F.I.R. and consequent investigation can be quashed when no offence is spelled out from the F.I.R. The case law is an authority for the proposition that the only ground on which the Court can quash the F.I.R. is the absence of any case having been made out from the contents of the F.I.R. All other reasons for quashing the F.I.R. are thus redundant. Since in the present case, it cannot be said that no offence is made out from the contents of F.I.R., it is not possible to quash the first information report.

The fact of inherent improbabilities and ill-will stressed by the counsel for the applicants are the reason for filing the F.I.R., have all become inane and futile after the aforesaid observations by the Supreme Court, and no F.I.R. can be quashed on such alleged grounds. It may also be, however, noted that there is no question of any civil matter being converted into a criminal case, because the allegations, that Akram fired upon by the two alleged applicants by the fire-arm, though he escaped unhurt. This allegation cannot be said to be a civil matter.

There is no substance in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed.