Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 707 (MP)

ANIL KUMAR SAHU v. LAXMI

2005-07-12

S.L.JAIN

body2005
ORDER S.L. Jain, J. Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction" of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth, 'the Code'), Misc. Cri. Case No. 7549 of 2003 decided on 12-7-2005. (Jabalpur) petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 13-3-2003, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad and also for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 610/2003 pending in that Court. The facts giving rise to the petition are that respondent Laxmi Bai filed a complaint u/s 200 of the Code alleging that the petitioners have committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 452 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (henceforth 'the Act'). The Magistrate directed an enquiry in the matter, to be done by S.H.O., P. S. Pipariya. After the enquiry, the S.H.O., P. S. Pipariya, submitted his report stating that because of a report lodged against the husband of the complainant, on the basis of which Crime No. 462/2001 was registered against him, exaggerated versions have been made in the complaint. The witnesses who were examined in support of the complaint, are the close relatives of the husband of the complainant. The complainant, being a woman of scheduled caste, was exploiting her position. On the request of the complainant, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate fixed the case for recording the evidence of complainant and her witnesses. The statements of complainant Laxmi Bai and her witnesses, Babli Bai, Prabha Bai, Shalikram and Kaushal Singh were recorded. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after considering the statements of the complainant and her witnesses, on oath, and the result of the enquiry by police, found that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners and as such registered the complaint for the offences punishable under sections 148, 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of the Act. I have heard Shri R.L. Ariha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Aseem Dixit, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 2/State. None appeared for respondent No. 1 at the time of final hearing. I have heard Shri R.L. Ariha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Aseem Dixit, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 2/State. None appeared for respondent No. 1 at the time of final hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that certain reports were made by one of the petitioners against the husband of the complainant Laxmi Bai and other persons, therefore, by way of counter blast in order to pressurize petitioner Vijay Kumar and other petitioners who were the witnesses to the incident regarding which FIR was lodged by Vijay Kumar, the respondent No. 1 has filed this false complaint. The counsel also submitted that a report was lodged by respondent No. 1 at P. S. Pipariya on 11-1-2002 which was recorded at Rojnamcha Sanha No. 779. In this report, the allegations regarding the commission of the offences punishable under sections 148, 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of the Act were not made. In order to pressurize the petitioners the complaint was filed by respondent No. 1 making the exaggerated versions. In the report made by S.H.O., P.S., Pipariya, after the investigation as per the directions of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, a finding has been recorded that the allegations made in the complaint are exaggerated and no offence is made out against the petitioners. Therefore, not only the order dated 13-3-2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pipariya but also the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others, , further submitted that the Court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and no purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, proceedings are liable to be quashed. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceeding is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence and the same is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute an offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate, it is open to this Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute an offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate, it is open to this Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations in the light of the statements on oath of the complainant and his/her witnesses that the ingredients of the offences are disclosed, in that event, there would be no justification for interference by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on analysis of the material available on record, it appears that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous and vexatious. It has been filed by way of a counter blast. The contention is not acceptable. When the Magistrate was satisfied on the statement of the complainant, the evidence of his/her witnesses examined and the material on record that the cognizance should be taken, it will not be appropriate for this Court to quash the proceedings on additional material filed by the accused. It is not necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case could end in conviction or not. On the basis of the material on record, it cannot be said that the process of Court is being abused. It cannot be said that the process has been issued mechanically to harass the petitioners. When the complainant has made definite allegations with regard to commission of substantive offence and prima facie case is made out, the impugned order and the criminal case registered against the petitioners cannot be quashed. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.