2015 (6) TMI 1264 - HC - Indian Laws

Forging of sale deed in respect of a theater owned by her - offences under Section 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC - HELD THAT - This Court perused both the FIRs. Crime No.216 of 2012 relates to an incident that took place on 24.04.2012, where the defacto complainant/Bhuvaneswari was abused and assaulted by Subramaniam and his family members and that is why, the police registered a case for offences under Section 294 b , 323 and 506 i IPC. Whereas, in this complaint, Bhuvaneswari alleged that Subramaniam has forged the sale deed in respect of a theater owned by her and that is the reason, why the police have registered a case for offences under Section 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. Thus, the allegations in Crime No.216 of 2012 and Crime No.179 of 2015 are totally different. That apart, this Court cannot go into disputed question of facts in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal 1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT has laid down the guidelines for quashing an FIR. The complaint in Crime No.179 of 2015 discloses the commission of cognizable offence and therefore, this Court cannot quash the FIR, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition to quash FIR under sections 467, 468, 471, and 420 of IPC - Comparison of two FIRs - Disputed facts in Section 482 Cr.P.C petition - Guidelines for quashing FIR as per State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal case.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against the petitioner for offenses under sections 467, 468, 471, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner argued that a previous complaint by the same complainant did not mention the transactions relevant to the current case. The court examined both FIRs, noting that the previous case involved abuse and assault, while the current case alleged forgery of a sale deed. The court emphasized that the two cases were distinct, indicating that the allegations were unrelated.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, it cannot delve into disputed facts. Citing the case of State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal, the court reiterated the guidelines for quashing an FIR. The court emphasized that since the complaint in the present case disclosed a cognizable offense, it could not quash the FIR based on the established legal principles. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue legal remedies through appropriate channels. The connected Miscellaneous petition was also closed as a result of the judgment.