Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 567 (MP)

Radheshyam Shukla v. State of M. P.

2013-04-29

M.K.Mudgal

body2013
ORDER Mudgal. J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2008, passed by the Court of JMFC Kolaras District Shivpuri, taking cognizance and framing charge under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after is called IPC, the petitioner has filed the petition u/S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (herein-after is called Cr PC) for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1095/2007 pending against him in the aforesaid Court. 2. In brief, facts giving rise to this petition are that, a written report, undated, was submitted by Smt. Bhagavati Bai to the SP Shivpuri, in connection with her tractor seized by some employees of Bank of India, Branch Shivpuri, The SP directed the SDOP Kolaras to inquire into the matter, by whom, after inquiry a report dated 26.7.2007 was sent to Town Inspector, PS Kolaras. On the basis of which FIR, Crime No. 209/2007, u/S. 379 of IPC, was registered against the accused at Police Station Kolaras. During Investigation, Statement of the witnesses Pooran Singh, Narendra, Bachanlal and Bhagwati Bai were recorded. The Tractor No. MP08/D/1152 was seized on 14.7.2007 from the possession of Smt. Bhagvati Devi. After completion of investigation the charges heet was filed against the petitioner/accused under section 379, 499 and 501 of IPC vide order dated 17.12.2008, the charge under section 379 was framed against the accused. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that there was no evidence against the accused for framing charge under section 379 of the IPC. If the entire evidence produced by the prosecution along with the charge sheet is presumed to be correct no offence is made out against the accused as in the undated written report, it has not been mentioned by the complainant that the tractor was snatched away by the accused. More-over, as per allegations of the report the tractor was snatched away by a few employees of the Bank, in which presence of the accused was not shown on the spot. Besides, the tractor was not recovered from the possession of the accused on the contrary vide seizer memo dated 14.7.2007 the tractor was seized from the possession of complainant Smt. Bhagwati Devi herself. All the same, no witness has deposed against the accused about snatching of the tractor by the accused from the possession of the Driver Bacchanlal. No Identification Parade was conduced of the accused by the witness Bacchanlal. All the same, no witness has deposed against the accused about snatching of the tractor by the accused from the possession of the Driver Bacchanlal. No Identification Parade was conduced of the accused by the witness Bacchanlal. In this way, the charge framed against the accused is not only baseless but also contrary to law. The trial is being conducted against the accused without any basis which has no meaning. The counsel further submits that the criminal trial pending against the accused is required to be quashed under section 482 of CrPC as it is totally an abuse of process of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on reliance of the judgment reported as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR SC 604. 4. On behalf of the prosecution the learned. Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order submitted that the order is based on proper reasoning and recorded evidence of the charge sheet. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned order. 5. The arguments of both the learned counsel were considered. On perusal of the record it becomes clear that the undated written report was submitted by Smt. Bhagwati Devi to the SP Shivpuri who has not put any date under his signature. As per contents of the report that the tractor was snatched away by some persons. It has not been stated in the report that the accused has participated in the alleged incident. In the FIR the date of occurrence has been shown as 16.3.2007 whereas the FIR was registered after three month i.e. 27.6.2007 on the basis of the report dated 26.6.2007 sent by SDOP Kolaras to Town Inspector Kolaras. The SDOP has stated in his report that the accused Radheshyam Shukla was field officer by whom the tractor, MP08/D/1152 was got snatched away by his employee, but the conclusion drawn by the SDOP has no basis but it is totally based on imagination, as no witness has deposed against the accused regarding his involvement on the spot for taking away the tractor of the complainant from the possession of her driver. 6. The complainant Smt. Bhagvati Devi and her son Narendra were not present on the spot when the alleged incident happened. The witness Puran Singh was the former owner of the tractor. 6. The complainant Smt. Bhagvati Devi and her son Narendra were not present on the spot when the alleged incident happened. The witness Puran Singh was the former owner of the tractor. No objection certicate for transfer the alleged stolen tractor was obtained on 8.5.2007 by former owner Puran Singh from the Bank after depositing a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- during inquiry of undated written report. As per the statement of Smt. Bhagvati Devi and Narendra the said tractor was purchased by them from Puran Singh. The witness Puran Singh is not any eye witness of the incident and his evidence has no relevance to the alleged occurrence. The witness Bacchanlal was the driver on the tractor at the time of happening of the incident and he has not deposed anything, even a word against the accused. As per statement of Bacchanlal four persons arrived at the spot, where the tractor was parked by him and they took away the tractor form his possession but he has not identified the accused. The said witness has not disclosed the names of the said four persons. No other statement was recorded during the investigation by the police. Even if the statement of the above four witnesses is presumed to be correct, no inference can be drawn regarding the alleged theft committed by the accused. Besides, the tractor was not seized from the possession of the accused. On the contrary as per seizure memo dated 14.7.2007, the tractor was seized from the possession of the complainant herself. For committing theft the removal of the movable property from the complainant possession is necessary but it is not found in this case. However, the accused was Field Officer in the Bank fo India on the date of alleged incident, on that basis also accused cannot be blamed for the alleged act of taking away the tractor by unidentified four persons. In this manner the contentions raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner deserves to be accepted as there is no prima facie evidence on recored against the accused to connect him with the charge framed by the lower Court. In Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Lt. and Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another (2005) 1 SCC 122 has held as follows “it would be an abuse of process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Lt. and Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another (2005) 1 SCC 122 has held as follows “it would be an abuse of process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.” 7. In view of the above facts, it is concluded that the lower Court has committed mistake in framing charge against the accused under section 379 of the IPC, no prima facie evidence was found against him for the same. In such circumstances continuation of the trial against the accused would be a futile exercise by the Court and it would be an abuse of process of law. Thus, the proceedings of trial Court in Criminal Case 1095/2007 pending in the Court of JMFC Kolaras, District Shivpuri, against the petitioner deserves to be quashed under section 482 CrPC. 8. Therefore, allowing the petition filed by the petitioner the proceedings of the Criminal Case 1095/2007 pending against the petitioner/accused under section 379 of IPC is hereby quashed. The bail bond and personal bond of the accused is cancelled. 9. Copy of the order be sent of JMFC Kolaras District Shivpuri for compliance of the order.