Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 209 (MEG)

Madonbai Rymbai v. State of Meghalaya

2014-09-02

S.R.SEN

body2014
Order This instant petition is directed against the FIR dated 10.02.2014 and investigation pending under Jowai P.S. Case No. 45 (2) 2014 U/s 406/506/34 IPC.Crl. Petn. No. 11 of 2014 Page 2 of 7 1. The petitioner’s case in nut shell is that, “this is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing and setting aside the FIR dated 10.02.2014 and the proceedings in Jowai P.S. Case No.45(2)2014 U/s 406/506/34 IPC and the same is pending for disposal. The factual matrix of the case in brief is that the applicant is a member of the JHADC from Khliehtyrshi – Sohmynting constituency. During the relevant period the applicant was also an Executive Member of the Dorbar Shnong Khliehtyrshi. In the year 2010, the lands belonging to various landowners, which included the land of the petitioner as well as that of Dorbar Shnong Khliehtyrshi, were acquired by the Government for construction of Jowai by-pass road. The Collector, fixed the land compensation in respect of the land belonging to the Dorbar Shnong Khliehtyrshi at Rs. 1,00,05,947.60. The land compensation for the plot of land of the applicant was fixed at Rs. 15 lakh in respect of his plots of land from the office of the Collector. In respect of the land compensation for the land of Dorbar Shnong Khliehtyrshi, the Executive Committee of the Dorbar Shnong Khliehtyrshi vide resolution dated 31.08.2010 had authorized the applicant, who at that point of time was only one of the Executive Member of the Executive Committee of Dorbar Shnong Khliehtyrshi, to negotiate and collect the land compensation from the Collector. The applicant accordingly collected the land compensation amount of Rs 1,00,05,947.60 from the collector. The Dorbar Shnong Khliehtyrshi wanted to utilize the said land compensation for purchasingnew lands for setting up play ground and school for the use and benefits of the residents of the village. Accordingly, vide Sale Deed dated 07.11.2010 a plot of land measuring about 26,632 Sq. Ft. in Khliehtyrshi village was purchased for a sum of Rs 45 lakh for construction of football ground. Vide another Sale Deed dated 07.11.2010, another plot of land measuring about 17,822 Sq. Ft. was purchased for a sum of Rs. 35 lakh for construction of a School. As such, a total amount of Rs. 80 lakh was Crl. Petn. Ft. in Khliehtyrshi village was purchased for a sum of Rs 45 lakh for construction of football ground. Vide another Sale Deed dated 07.11.2010, another plot of land measuring about 17,822 Sq. Ft. was purchased for a sum of Rs. 35 lakh for construction of a School. As such, a total amount of Rs. 80 lakh was Crl. Petn. No. 11 of 2014 spent out of the land compensation of Rs 1,00, 05,947.60p in purchasing the aforesaid two plots of land and the balance amount of Rs. 20,05,947.60p was lying with the Dorbar Shnong, which was subsequently utilized by the Dorbar Shnong Khliehtyrshi for other development works like construction of footpath, repairing of school, payment of teachers’ salary etc. As such, the entire amount of land compensation received has been properly accounted and utilized for various developmental purposes of the village and for the benefits of its residents. The election for the District Council was due to be held on 24.02.2014; the applicant filed his nomination and was one of the contesting candidates at the election from Sohmynting- Khliehtyrshi constituency. While the elections were in progress and political fortunes at stake, the other candidates from the said constituency and others in the opposition were leaving no stone unturned to malign the image of the applicant in order to get political mileage at the election and deprive him of office. At the behest of the candidates of the other political party, the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 lodged an FIR with the Jowai Police Station on 10.02.2014 alleging that the applicant, in collusion with other office bearers of Dorbar Shnong Khliehtyrshi has misappropriated the land compensation amount of Rs. 1,15,05,947.60p with regard to land belonging to Dorbar Shong, Khliehtyrshi, for which the money belonged to Dorbar Shnong Khliehtyrshi. The said FIR has been registered as Jowai P.S. Case No. 45 (2) 2014 U/s 406/506/34 IPC. The FIR was lodged without verifying the records of the Dorbar Shnong Khliehtyrshi. The records in the office of the Dorbar Shnong Khliehtyrshi has full accounts of the said amount of compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,05,947.60 which has been utilized for purchasing of lands for constructing football ground and for construction of School and the remaining amount has been spent for various developmental works. However, the respondents No. 2, 3 & 4, without ascertaining the facts Crl. Petn. 1,00,05,947.60 which has been utilized for purchasing of lands for constructing football ground and for construction of School and the remaining amount has been spent for various developmental works. However, the respondents No. 2, 3 & 4, without ascertaining the facts Crl. Petn. No. 11 of 2014 and with ill motives to malign the image of the applicant in the said elections, lodged an FIR. The said FIR, on the face of it, was motivated purely by political considerations and was a pre-planned and concerted move on the part of the political opponents to malign the image of the applicant when the elections to the District Council were underway. This is evident from the fact that, payment of land compensation was made by the Collector, Jaintia Hills District on 5.8.2010 and 7.8.2010 and the FIR has been lodged in February 2014, after more than 3 ½ years. The FIR was an abuse of process of law in as much as the same has been filed with an ill motive to jeopardize and hamper the political career of the applicant and as a political propaganda to malign and defame the applicant at the time of the District Council Elections where the applicant was one of the contesting candidates.” 2. Mr HS Thangkhiew, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr N. Mozika, counsel for the petitioner submits that, an FIR was lodged on 10.02.2014 with malafide intention to defame and harass the petitioner as he is a public representative. The learned senior counsel further contended that, the petitioner has in no way misappropriated the compensation money rather the same has been utilized for public purposes and for the benefit of the people of the locality, as such, the FIR dated 10.02.2014 is baseless and has no leg to stand on. 3. On the other hand Mr. SP Mahanta, the learned senior counsel appeared for on behalf of the respondents No. 2,3 & 4 submitted that, definitely there is some conspiracy and it is also a fact that those affected persons whose lands have been acquired have not received any compensation. The learned senior counsel further contended that, Section 482 CrPC should not be invoked un-necessarily where there is prima facie case. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ofCrl. Petn. The learned senior counsel further contended that, Section 482 CrPC should not be invoked un-necessarily where there is prima facie case. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ofCrl. Petn. No. 11 of 2014 Arun Bhaddari vrs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2013) 2 SCC 801 . 4. Mr. B Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appeared for on behalf of respondent No. 5 endorsed the submission advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Further, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submitted that, the money has been utilized for the benefit of the people and the land also belonged to the Dorbar Shnong of Khliehtyrshi. 5. Mr. K Khan, the learned State counsel produced the CD and submitted that, the matter is at the investigation stage, so the police may be allowed to investigate the case independently and to find out the truth. 6. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at bar taking into consideration the Guidelines given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that invoking the power under Section 482 in this instant case may not amount to prevent the abuse of process of law rather it will encourage abuse of process of law. 7. The observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paras-30 & 31 are reproduced herein below: “30. In CBI v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava the Court, after referring to Jnanta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar, has observed that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles and such inherentpowers should not be exercised to stifle alegitimate prosecution. This Court has further stated that it is not proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It has been further Crl. Petn. This Court has further stated that it is not proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It has been further Crl. Petn. No. 11 of 2014 pronounced that it would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint could not be proceeded with. The Bench has opined that the meticulous analysis of the case is not necessary and the complaint has to be read as a whole and if it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. 31. In R. Kalyani v. Janak C Mehta, after referring to the decisions in Hamida v. Rshid and State of Orrissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, this Court eventually culled out the following propositions: (R. Kalyani case, p. 523 para 15) “15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are : (1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to nay document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.”It is worth nothing that it was observed therein that one of the paramount duties of the superiorcourt is to see that a person who is absolutely innocent is not subjected to prosecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint.” 8. From the above observation, it is very clear that inherent power under Section 482 CrPC not to be used in random but to be used sparingly as and when necessary to prevent the abuse process of law. Crl. Petn. No. 11 of 2014 Since, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the respondents No. 2,3 & 4 have not received any compensation money rather it has been misappropriated. In such a circumstances, I find that it is a fit case where proper investigation is necessary. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the FIR dated 10.02.2014, however, the IO concerned is directed to expedite the investigation and to complete the investigation as early as possible. 9. With these observations and directions, this instant petition is dismissed and the matter stands disposed of.