Nirmal Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Another



 
    
    




!

 " # #

$% ####    &!!

!   # ####!  !

" '$#!
!  $
  

         



    

 

  !
"

#   $  

  %

  & " !

    ' ( !  $( )

  

#  +,( 
 -  ./&' 0,0 )1 )) (2(034
567 +(2+81+8,+1))(259 :)) /
),82  


 ' 3 % 7   - 

 

(  

    4                 

    %  # "; ! 3 7 

   ' ; 

    #

 

 (2))#     

       

  #           )616

    #

#           #      %   %   

  #

   

  

%   (2(0 



#- -    ./& ' 0,0'#(2(0    /
       

<   



#

      -

 #   

#    

 %      

     



           

+ /

%      

  ./&   %#

   *   

 -

 - #  ./& * 

   

  

# #   

   % 

 %    ./&#



:

=  

   

   #





   

)

%  % #  0) 2+ (22,   

  #        . <     

    # # %  #

# 

    #

  %

 #   

   %  

     

   0) 2+ (22,%    #           

                . <   

     

    



    5     #

% -  

   # #

  %      

  

     %  

    

 %                "                

   #   -  

  %

  

 

   %#     "

,  /      

#  #   %  " #  /



    #   > 

 - # %

    % -      #4 %         prima facie  ?

# 

    #        

  / #          * 

   %    

#    # *  %

#   #

     

     

    *    % # #

4"   @
 

   

 






         
     

  A/$                ?

#

B "i) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

ii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

iii) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the `rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

iv) 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;

v) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vi) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

vii) 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 and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;

viii) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

ix) 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; x) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xi) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported." )2

%   #        ./&    %   



 

  
 #     /%#  

 # 

?



>./& # 

  #   %      

 

# 

 #   





    >  #            %   

 # #      % % B

* "i) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; ii) 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 (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;

iii) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;

iv) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

)(

-    5  #   

# C  

%  % 





 

 

 - 

     %     /  % 

# 5     

     

                 # #"  #  

+  %        

)0

/%    #   %#  4    %

    -

  

  # " 

  #  #    )+

    

):

 

    

          





!  $ # #  Sham Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No