Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1028 (MP)

Satyanarayan Iyer v. State of M. P.

2015-09-28

JARAT KUMAR JAIN

body2015
ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short “the Code”] is filed for quashment of Istgasa No.1/2008 filed by Police Station M. G. Road, Indore against the petitioner which is registered as Criminal Case No.28356/2008 pending before the JMFC, Indore. 2. Brief facts of this case are that at the relevant time, Mahendra Yadav was posted as Security Guard in Jabalpur Motors, Indore. On 28.10.2008 he lodged a report at Police Station M.G. Road, Indore stating that on the last night at about 11.30 pm. Raju Chaiwala along with 3-4 persons came at Jabalpur Motors and at the revolver point they have abused him and by iron-rod they damaged the cashier's chamber and broken the handle of locker and also threatened to kill him. On this basis, at Police Station M.G. Road, Indore, Crime No.512/2008 for the offences under sections 451, 506 and 427 of IPC was registered against Raju Chaiwala and 3 unknown persons. The police investigated the matter and found that Security Guard Mahendra Yadav has lodged a false report with the conspiracy of the present petitioner – Satyanarayan Iyer who at the relevant time was Manager of Jabalpur Motors. After investigation, it was found that a false report has been lodged against Raju Chaiwala and other 3-4 persons. Thereafter, police has filed an Istgasa against Security Guard Mahendra Yadav and present petitioner – Satyanarayan Iyer for the offences under sections 182 and 211 of IPC in the Court of JMFC, Indore which is registered as Criminal Case No.28356/2008. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of Istgasa. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Istgasa there is no evidence that at the instance of petitioner or with the conspiracy of petitioner, Security Guard-Mahendra Yadav has lodged a false report against Raju Chaiwala. Thus, to allow to continue this criminal proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law, therefore, it be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State submits that this is a matter of evidence and only after recording of evidence the Court can find out as to whether there is any evidence to convict the petitioner or not ? There is no merit in the petition, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. 6. There is no merit in the petition, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. 6. I have carefully examined the Istgasa and also the case-diary of Crime No.512/2008 which is registered at Police Station M.G. Road, Indore at the instance of Security Guard Mahendra Yadav. In the FIR and the statement, it is not mentioned that at the instance of petitioner – Satyanarayan Iyer, Mahendra Yadav lodged the report. In the Istgasa also, none of the witnesses stated against the present petitioner. Learned Government advocate is unable to point out any material for prosecuting the present petitioner. 7. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that there is no material against the present petitioner for prosecuting him for the offences under sections 182 and 211 read with section 120B of IPC. Therefore, to allow to continue the criminal proceedings against the present petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. Thus, the petition is allowed. The Istgasa, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed and consequently, the petitioner is discharged from the aforesaid charges. Copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court for information and compliance. Miscellaneous Criminal Case stands disposed of.