Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 274 (MP)

Aasit @ Gudda v. State of M. P.

2004-03-18

A.K.AWASTHY

body2004
JUDGMENT Applicant has filed the petition under section 482 of the CrPC for the quashment of the first information report against him in Crime No. 55/04 for offence punishable under section 4A of the Gambling Act and also in Crime No. 56/04 registered for the offence under section 14 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 by Police Station Shajapur. The admitted facts of the case are that the Collector, Shajapur, in Case No. 64/Misc.CRI/2001 issued a show cause notice to the applicant under section 6-C of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 in which it was alleged that as the applicant is involved in various criminal cases, the order of externment of applicant from District Shajapur be passed and thereafter the Collector, Shajapur, vide order dated 6.11.2003, passed 'the order against the applicant that he should not enter into District Shajapur, Dewas and Ujjain for the period of one year. It is also not in dispute that the criminal case in Crime No. 55/04 is registered against the applicant under section4A of Public Gambling Acton 23.1.2004. That the Police Shajapur has registered another Case vide Crime No. 56/04 against the applicant. That on 23.1.2004 the applicant was at Shajapur in contravention of the order of the Collector dated 6.11.2003. The applicant has prayed that the first information report in Crime No. 55/04 and Crime No. 56/04 are lodged on false and beseless grounds because on 23.1.2004 the applicant was not present at Shajapur but he was in the office of the Secretary of the State of M.P., Bhopal, in connection with his appeal under section 9 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam against the order of the Collector dated 6.11.2003. From the case diary of Crime No. 55/04 it is clear, that the applicant on the night of 23.1.2004 was at Shajapur and he was indulging in the offence of Satta. The statements of the witnesses are also in the diary' against the applicant. Consequently, there is prima facie evidence against the applicant in the case diary that he is involved in the offence punishable under section 4A of Public Gambling Act and also contravened the externment order issued by the Collector which is punishable under section 14 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam. The case of the petitioner that it was not possible to remain present at Shajapur, is a matter of defence which can be looked into by the Court concerned. The case of the petitioner that it was not possible to remain present at Shajapur, is a matter of defence which can be looked into by the Court concerned. The appraisal of such defence of applicant is not done in petition under section 482, CrPC. The inherent powers under section 482 of the CrPC are exercised in the rarest of rare cases sparingly and the first information report is quashed only when virtually no case is made out against the petitioner. It is laid down in case of J.P. Sharma v. Vinod Kumar Jain [AIR 1986" SC 833] and in State of Maharashtra v. Bansidhar Singh [ AIR 1996 SC 938 ] it is held that where the prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, the Court, under section 482, CrPC is not concerned with the truth of allegation which will be decided in the investigation or by Court. The petition is devoid of merits and it is, hereby, dismissed.