Judgment Intelligence
OtherHemant Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
2024:RJ-JD:29983
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4436/2024
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 23 July 2024
- Bench
- Justice Arun Monga
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 120-B, 500; Information Technology Act, 2000 — Sections 66, 66C; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 36
Final Outcome
The FIR was not quashed. The petition was disposed of with liberty to approach a superior police officer under Section 36 CrPC; if summoned, the petitioners are to be admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds to the Investigating Officer’s satisfaction. Pending applications were disposed of (paras 8-10).
Key holdings
- A petition to quash an FIR at the preliminary stage cannot rest merely on self-serving affidavits (para 7).
- A superior police officer approached under Section 36 CrPC may, after initial inquiries, terminate the proceedings or direct the Investigating Officer to continue the investigation (para 8).
- Where the offences alleged are bailable, a fear of arrest is unfounded; persons summoned are to be admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds to the Investigating Officer’s satisfaction (para 9).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Five petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 101/2024 of 07.06.2024, registered at Police Station Kelwa, District Rajsamand, under Sections 500 and 120-B IPC and Sections 66 and 66C of the IT Act (para 1). The pleaded facts concern a mobile phone left unattended at a shop, said to have been taken by the second accused, and defamatory WhatsApp messages and videos the fourth accused allegedly sent (para 2). The petitioners claimed false implication, calling the FIR a misuse of police powers to pressure them over a dispute concerning a JCB and a counter blast to an earlier theft FIR against the complainant (paras 2, 5, 5.1). The State replied that investigation was at a very initial stage (para 6).
Court's Findings
The Court held that at this preliminary stage it would not be appropriate to entertain a petition for quashing the FIR based merely on self-serving affidavits (para 7). Even otherwise, the petitioners should first have approached a superior officer under Section 36 CrPC. That officer, after conducting initial inquiries, has the authority either to terminate the proceedings or to direct the Investigating Officer already handling the matter to continue investigating the FIR (para 8). The petitioners' apprehension of arrest was completely unfounded because the offences alleged against them are bailable; if summoned by the Investigating Officer, they are to be admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds to that officer's satisfaction (para 9). The Court did not rule on the truth of the allegations or on the counter-blast plea (paras 7-8).
Legal Principle
At the preliminary stage of investigation, the High Court need not entertain a petition to quash an FIR that rests merely on self-serving affidavits. The petitioner should first approach a superior police officer under Section 36 CrPC, who may, after initial inquiries, terminate the proceedings or direct the investigation to continue (paras 7-8).
