Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1032 (MP)

Roop Singh v. State of M. P.

2013-08-30

D.K.PALIWAL

body2013
JUDGMENT This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR registered at Crime No. 47/2009, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 323 of IPC as well as charge-sheet filed before the JMFC, Bhind. 2. Brief facts of the petition are that petitioner-Roop Singh has lodged the report at Police Station, Pawai that a dispute regarding Med was going on between the complainant and Gambhir Singh and others and on account of it, on 20-7-2009, Naresh Singh, Lakhan and Tahsildar have beaten his brother Shyam Singh. The report of this incident has not been lodged. On account of this enmity, on 21-7-2009, at about 8.30 a.m., complainant and his brother Shyam Singh were going to collect the Dund. As soon as they move towards Charbigha Khet, at that moment Udham Baba, armed with Chimta, Naresh Singh and Jaipal Singh, armed with 12 bore gun, Lakhan, Jathon Singh, Gambhir Singh, Tahsildar Singh, Mevaram and Subedar Singh armed with lathi came there and started beating by means of lathi. Subedar has given lathi blow on the head. Mevaram has given lathi blow on right ear, Ramveer Singh, Gambhir Singh, Subedar and Tahsildar, Bhup Singh and Gajendra have given lathi blow on the complainant. When they proceeded towards their house, father of the complainant Amar Singh and brother Kriparam came to rescue them, then Naresh, Lakhan and Jaipal came there. Naresh fired from his 12 bore gun, which hit Lakhan on his chest, as a result, Lakhan fell down on the ground. Jaipal also fired two shot at Lakhan Singh, as a result of which Lakhan died. On this, Dehati Nalishi was recorded and on the basis of the Dehati Nalishi FIR at Crime No. 47/2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 323 of IPC has been recorded. However, the accused persons as mentioned in the report, have not been arrested and no interrogation has been made. After recording false statement of some interested person, the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners. It is alleged that accused persons against whom FIR was lodged have been exonerated and the petitioners have been made accused for committing murder of their father. Being aggrieved of the same, this petition has been filed. 3. After recording false statement of some interested person, the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners. It is alleged that accused persons against whom FIR was lodged have been exonerated and the petitioners have been made accused for committing murder of their father. Being aggrieved of the same, this petition has been filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the action of the respondent is bad in law, the case could not be registered against the present petitioners. Charge-sheet has been filed in collusion with the accused persons. Prima facie the persons whose names have been mentioned in the FIR are real culprits as per material available on the record therefore, charge-sheet ought to have been filed against them. Otherwise also, it is unnatural that the sons have murdered their own father. In the incident, all the petitioners have sustained injuries as they were beaten at the time of incident and their father have been murdered, but police has not fairly and impartially investigated the matter. It is further submitted that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners prior to the registration of the case against them. The action of the respondent tantamount to gross violation of the natural justice. Hence prayed for quashing of charge-sheet against the petitioners. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that after due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners. It is further submitted that on the basis of the investigation conducted by I.O., it was found that the petitioners have murdered their father to save themselves from the prosecution in Crime No. 46/2009 for committing the murder of Dev Singh, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the record. Before examining the rival submissions, it would be apposite to briefly examine the nature of the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and another v. Datar Switchgear Limited and others, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 479 , has held as under:-- “18. It is well-settled that though the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide in amplitude, yet they are not unlimited. It is well-settled that though the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide in amplitude, yet they are not unlimited. However, it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an absolute rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Nevertheless, it is trite that powers under the said provision have to be exercised sparingly and with caution to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken as its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged, the High Court would be justified in invoking its powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceeding. 19. In Som Mittal, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while holding that the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases, observed that:-- 9. When the words 'rarest of rare cases' are used after the words 'sparingly and with circumspection' while describing the scope of Section 482 those words merely emphasis and reiterate that is intended to be conveyed by the words 'sparingly and with circumspection'. They mean that the power under Section 482 to quash proceedings should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The expression 'rarest or rare cases' is not used in the sense in which it is used with reference to punishment for offences under Section 302, IPC, but to emphasise that the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR or criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and with circumspection. Judgments are not to be construed as statutes. Nor words or phrases in judgments to be interpreted like provisions of a statute. Some words used in a judgment should be read and understood contextually and are not intended to be taken literally. Nay a time a Judge uses a phrase or expression with the intention of emphasizing a point or accentuating a principle or even by way of a flourish own writing style. Some words used in a judgment should be read and understood contextually and are not intended to be taken literally. Nay a time a Judge uses a phrase or expression with the intention of emphasizing a point or accentuating a principle or even by way of a flourish own writing style. Ratio decidendi of a justice is not to be discerned from a stray word of phrase read in isolation.” 7. As per FIR registered at Crime No. 47/2009 it appears that the petitioner-Roop Singh has given a report to Sub-Inspector, Grish Kumar Kavrate, who went to the Village Bahodi to verify the information recorded at Rojnamcha Sanha registered at 487 on 21-7-2009. The petitioner Roop Singh alleged that Gambhir Singh, Udhamdas Baba, Mevaram, Naresh Singh, Lakhan, Jathon Singh, Jaipal Singh, Tahsildar Singh, Subedar Singh have given lathi blow to him and his brother had also fired shot at his father Lakhan Singh, who died. 8. It is pertinent to mention that Jitendra Singh has lodged the report alleging that on 20-7-2009 at about 8.30 p.m., when his uncle Devi Singh was grazing his cattle Shyam Singh, Roop Singh and Bhup Singh armed with 12 bore gun, Gajendra and Narendra armed with farsa. Kriparam armed with lathi. Phool Singh and Lakhan Singh armed with mouser. Brijesh armed with lathi came there and started abusing Devi Singh, complainant Jitendra Singh, Udham Das, Mevaram and Jahan Singh went to save Devi Singh then Shyam Singh fired shot from his 12 bore gun at Devi Singh, which hit him above his left hand elbow and another shot was fired by Bhup Singh from his 12 bore gun, which hit on chest of Devi Singh and Dev Singh fell down. When complainant tried to save Devi Singh then Narendra has given farsa blow on the head of the complainant. Kriparam has given lathi blow on the shoulder. Brijesh has given lathi blow to Subedar on left hand. Narendra has given farsa blow to Udhamdas on head. Narendra and Virendra have given farsa blow to the father of the complainant. On this report, Dehati Nalishi has been recorded and on the basis of Dehati Nalishi Crime No. 46/2009 under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 323 of IPC has been registered against the petitioners and four others. 9. Narendra has given farsa blow to Udhamdas on head. Narendra and Virendra have given farsa blow to the father of the complainant. On this report, Dehati Nalishi has been recorded and on the basis of Dehati Nalishi Crime No. 46/2009 under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 323 of IPC has been registered against the petitioners and four others. 9. It appears that Jitendra Singh has lodged the report on 21-7-2009 at about 10.00 a.m., while the petitioner No. 1 has lodged the report on 21-7-2009 at 11.25 a.m. 10. From perusal of the medical report of Jitendra Singh, it appears that Jitendra has received lacerated wound over skull and contusion. Udhamdas has received lacerated wound over parietal region and right finger and also swelling on skull. Mevaram has received lacerated wound on top of the head and contusion. Udhamdas has received fracture. Deceased Devi Singh received fire arm injury over left arm and left side of chest. 11. From the bare perusal of the post-mortem report of Amar Singh, it appears that he has received fire arm injury. No medical report of Roop Singh, Bhup Singh and Brijendra Singh has been filed. 12. It is pertinent to mention that Kriparam has submitted a written complaint to the police that his father has been murdered, but, police has made them accused in the murder of their father. The complaint was inquired into by the Additional Superintendent of Police, who has submitted report to the Superintendent of Police mentioning that Jitendra Singh has also made a complaint and after inquiry it was found that Devi Singh was murdered and the case has been registered against Kriparam and others. The brother of Kriparam, Roop Singh and Bhup Singh have killed their father Amar Singh and lodged the report against Naresh, Lakhan and others to save themselves from the crime registered against themselves for committing murder of Devi Singh. On due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against Kriparam and his brothers and others. 13. Thus, not only the Investigation Officer, but senior police officer has also made an inquiry on the complaint of Kriparam, who is the brother of the petitioners and found that Roop Singh, Bhup Singh and Shyam Singh alongwith co-accused have murdered their father Amar Singh to save themselves from the Crime No. 46/2009. 14. 13. Thus, not only the Investigation Officer, but senior police officer has also made an inquiry on the complaint of Kriparam, who is the brother of the petitioners and found that Roop Singh, Bhup Singh and Shyam Singh alongwith co-accused have murdered their father Amar Singh to save themselves from the Crime No. 46/2009. 14. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has cited the following judgment and submits that there should be fair and impartial investigation:-- (i) Azija Begum v. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 126 . (ii) Vasanti Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 731 . (iii) Prakash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 1 . (iv) Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat and others, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 79 . 15. No doubt, it is true that the investigator is expected to conduct the investigation fairly and impartially, but in the instant case the petitioners have failed to brought any material before this Court to substantiate that investigation is not fair and impartial. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-Roop Singh lodged the report alleging that his father has been murdered by Naresh Singh, Lakhan Singh, Udham Das and others and sons cannot murder their father cannot be held sufficient to hold that investigation is not fair and impartial. As noticed above, the complaint made by the Kriparam, the brother of petitioners have been inquired into by a senior police officer, therefore, the submission of petitioner has no merits. 16. In the case of Azija Begum (supra), wherein the Magistrate was not satisfied that the matter was properly investigated, hence wanted further investigation Hon'ble Supreme Court approved it. In Vasanti Dubey (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered when the Magistrate/Special Judge could straight away direct for submission of the charge-sheet in case he refuse to accept the final report/closure report of the police/investigating agency. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh Badal (supra), has held that police officer concerned cannot embark upon an inquiry as to whether the information laid by the informant is reliable and genuine and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. The Officer is statutorily obliged to register a case. 17. The Officer is statutorily obliged to register a case. 17. The facts of the present case are distinguishable from the case laws cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, they are not helpful to the petitioners. 18. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the judgments reported in (2010) 10 SCC 660 , Asoke Basak v. State of Maharashtra and others and (2010) 10 SCC 479 , Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and another and submits that investigation agency has created a false evidence against the petitioners. 19. In the instant case, looking to the fact that after investigation charge-sheet has been filed, the complaint of brother of petitioners Kriparam has also been inquired into by the senior police officer, therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that false evidence has been created. The facts of the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are entirely different. 20. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that fair and impartial investigation is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the State has the duty to ensure a fair and impartial investigation. The reliance has been placed in the decision rendered in the case of State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571 . 21. No doubt, it is true that it is the right of every citizen to have a fair and impartial investigation. The issue involved in the case law cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners was whether the High Court can direct the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence, which is alleged to have been taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of a State without consent of the State Government. In the instant case no material has Seen placed before the Court showing that the investigation is unfair. 22. In the instant case no material has Seen placed before the Court showing that the investigation is unfair. 22. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Kedar Narayan Parida and others v. State of Orissa and another, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 538 , wherein the informant wife of deceased written a letter to High Court that police were inactive in not arresting all accused persons, who were involved in murder of her husband and the senior police officers at intervention of MLA discarding a supervision report implicating all accused persons and making a new report on the basis of Polygraph Test and alibi provided by MLA. It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that though normally Courts cannot interfere but the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can interfere with investigation to do justice to the parties. 23. In the instant case, there is no such allegation that someone is influencing the investigation, therefore, this case law does not advance the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 24. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also, placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Kishanlal v. Dharmendra Bafna and another, reported in (2009) 7 SCC 685 , in which it is held that power of reinvestigation under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. can be invoked when new facts come to light or when Superior Courts find that the investigation is tainted and or unfair or when Superior Courts find that it is required in the ends of justice. 25. In the case in hand as noticed hereinabove after due investigation the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners and inquiry was also held by the superior police officer on the complaint of brother of the petitioners. There is no merits in the submission that investigation is not fair and impartial. 26. The evidence collected during investigation is to be tested by the Trial Court. Quashing of proceedings by cutting short normal process of criminal trial has been held improper by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the matter of State of T.N. v. Thirukkural Perianal, reported in 1995 SCC (Cri.) 387, has observed as under:-- “The power of quashing an FIR and criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly by the Courts. Quashing of proceedings by cutting short normal process of criminal trial has been held improper by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the matter of State of T.N. v. Thirukkural Perianal, reported in 1995 SCC (Cri.) 387, has observed as under:-- “The power of quashing an FIR and criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly by the Courts. Indeed, the High Court has the extraordinary or inherent power to reach out injustice and quash the First Information Report and criminal proceedings, keeping in view the guidelines laid down by this Court in various judgments (reference in this connection may be made with advantage to State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal); but, the same has to be done with circumspection. The normal process of the criminal trial cannot be cut short in a rather casual manner. The Court, is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation only while dealing with a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceedings. 27. In view of aforesaid discussion, no case is made out for the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The petition is devoid of any merits. 28. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.