Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1310 (MP)

Shubham Chaurasiya v. State of M. P.

2014-10-10

B.D.RATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT : On the joint consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") for invoking the inherent jurisdiction vested to this court with a following relief:- “By allowing this petition, the FIR registered at Crime No.350/13 at police station Mahdoganj Lashkar Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 323,294 and 506 of I.P.C. may kindly be quashed and consequently proceedings of criminal case may also be quashed. “ 3. It may be necessary to notice a few relevant facts before adverting to the question as to whether this Court can quash the very First Information Report in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. 4. As per prosecution case, the incident occurred on 7/8/2013 at about 8 o' clock. Prompt report of the incident was lodged at 1-30 a.m. at Madhoganj police station by informant Ms. Archana Chaurasiya against the present petitioner alleging that she and her brother Ravi Chaurasiya are residing in the rental house of accused Som Charasiya. According to the complainant, accused Som Charasiya always used to abuse them and became ready for quarrel with an oblique purpose to forcibly vacate the rental house. It is alleged that on the date of incident on 7/8/2013 at 8 a.m. when she and her brother were present in the house, all of a sudden accused Som Chaurasiya came over there and after hurling abuses asked them to immediately vacate the tenanted house. 5. Thereafter, accused slapped her and also threatened both of them to face serious consequences in the event of lodging the report with the police. On report of the complainant, the FIR has been registered as Crime No.356/13 and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner for commission of offences under sections 323,294 and 506 of I.P.C. 6. The core of the grievance of the petitioner's counsel is that the entire allegations in the FIR do not constitute any offence against the accused and they are all frivolous and baseless. The core of the grievance of the petitioner's counsel is that the entire allegations in the FIR do not constitute any offence against the accused and they are all frivolous and baseless. It is also pointed out that when author of the FIR was brought to the hospital for examination of the injuries on 7/8/13, she voluntarily expressed her denial for examination of the injuries and because MLC has not been conducted, it shows that the entire criminal proceeding is an aimless voyage and the FIR has been lodged with some oblique motive to harass the petitioner. It is therefore prayed that the petition may be allowed and the relief claimed may be granted in favour of the petitioner. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the First Information Report on the face of it prima facie discloses the alleged offence against the petitioner and merely on the ground of refusal by the complainant for her medical examination, it cannot be urged that no case is made out against the petitioner. 8. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed. Having regard to the submissions aforesaid, the entire case has been examined. It well settled in law that where the F.I.R. and other material including the charge-sheet do not disclose any offence, or the proceedings are initiated mala fide or amount to abuse of the process of court the criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court under inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. After perusal of the facts as mentioned in the First Information Report, this court finds that the necessary ingredients which constitute the prima facie case for offence under sections 323 and 506 of I.P.C. are discernible from the First Information Report vis-a-vis the material available on record. So far as the plea raised that the complainant denied to get examined herself for the injuries sustained, it makes no difference because for the offence under section 323 of I.P.C., it is not necessary that the injury should be actually caused to the victim of the assault but it is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. 10. 10. Therefore for the offences under sections 323 and 506 of I.P.C., in the opinion of this court, there is ample material to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner/accused for the aforesaid offences. As regards offence under section 294 of I.P.C., suffice it to say that though annoyance is an important ingredient to attract the offence under Section 294, but same must be associated with mental condition and has to be inferred from the proved facts. 11. On perusal of the FIR, it is seen that the complainant has merely stated that the accused used abusive language. She has not stated as to which kind of words were spoken by which annoyance was caused. In this view of the matter, it would not be sufficient to infer commission of offence under Section 294 of I.P.C. 12. Resultantly, the petition is partly allowed. In view of the observation made above, the trial court is hereby directed to proceed against the accused-petitioner for offence under sections 323 and 506 of I.P.C., however the FIR registered for the offence under section 294 of I.P.C. as well as criminal proceedings instituted pursuant thereupon shall stand hereby quashed and the petitioner is discharged of the offence under section 294 of I.P.C. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court for proceeding with the matter in accordance with law.