Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 235 (MP)

Sameer Kumar Sharma v. State of M. P.

2015-02-25

S.K.PALO

body2015
JUDGMENT : S.K. Palo, J. 1. Heard. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR registered at Crime No. 25/13 at Police Station, Janakganj Gwalior and to quash the Criminal Case No. 1413/13 pending in the Court of JMFC, Gwalior, claiming that the FIR and continuation of proceedings are abuse of process of law. 2. Respondent No. 2 Seema Rangwani lodged the FIR on 13.1.2013 against Sameer Kumar, (petitioner) Shanta Sharma, Mrinal Sharma alleging that while she was preparing to celebrate Lohri festival in front of her house at about 3:15, the accused persons including the petitioner came and pelted stones. When complainant opposed the same, all the three accused persons abused her by obscene words and also inflicted injuries by kicks and fists. At that time, Rajesh, Vikki, Shayam Taneja, Rajendra Kumar Herani, Anil Ahuja witnessed the incident. Then the accused persons threatened of her life. 3. On this report, the Police Station, Janakganj filed a charge sheet before the JMFC, Gwalior. The learned JMFC in Cr. Case 1413/13 framed charges against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 294, 323,336, 506-II of IPC. 4. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner and other accused persons preferred revision before the 10th ASJ, Gwalior. The learned 10th ASJ in Cr. Revision No. 398/2014 dismissed the same vide order dated 11.11.2014 and observed that the petition has no merits. 5. Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C on the ground that there was no motive for the accused persons to commit the crime. The statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C about the place of occurrence is different. The causing of injury by kicks and fists is also not corroborated. Pain on the body part of the complainant is not mentioned in the FIR, whereas dramatically it was mentioned in the MLC report. It is also claimed by the petitioner that there is allegation of pelting of stones by the accused persons, but no such injury has been sustained. Threatening by the petitioner mentioned in the FIR appears to be false and concocted The words used in the abuse has not been mentioned verbatim. It is also claimed by the petitioner that there is allegation of pelting of stones by the accused persons, but no such injury has been sustained. Threatening by the petitioner mentioned in the FIR appears to be false and concocted The words used in the abuse has not been mentioned verbatim. The names of the witnesses in the FIR and the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C of witnesses belong to the community of the complainant. The evidence collected does not disclose the commission of offence. The FIR does not disclose the cognizable offence. Therefore, the investigation made by the police under Section 156 (1) of Cr.P.C is not justified. The complaint is absurd and inherently improbable. Therefore, it is abuse of process of Court. Hence, requested to quash the FIR registered at Crime No. 25/13 at Police Station Janakganj Gwalior and to quash proceeding in the Criminal Case No. 1413/13 pending in the Court of JMFC, Gwalior. 6. On behalf of the petitioner argument has been advanced in support of the petition at length. 7. Per contra, learned P.P for the State opposed the petition on the ground that there has been concurrent findings of two Courts. At the time of framing of charges, in which the Courts have clearly given the finding that offence under Sections 294, 323, 336 and506-II of IPC have been made out. In the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C also, there is no material contradictions and the presence of accused persons have been clearly mentioned. If there is any difference in the spot map, filed by the police that cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings at this stage. 8. On behalf of respondent No. 2 (complainant), the application is opposed vehemently. It is stated that charges have been framed by the learned JMFC after applying his own mind. The same was challenged before the learned ASJ, and was upheld. The petitioner has failed to apprise this Court that why the orders of the trial Court and revisional Court are not tenable. 9. It is further argued that the allegation of the petitioner that the FIR and the medical report have been falsely prepared cannot be sustained at this stage. Whatever evidence has been adduced or available on record cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. That can only be evaluated after evidence is adduced. 9. It is further argued that the allegation of the petitioner that the FIR and the medical report have been falsely prepared cannot be sustained at this stage. Whatever evidence has been adduced or available on record cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. That can only be evaluated after evidence is adduced. Prima facie case is made out for the offence. Therefore, charge have been framed. The defense of the petitioner that the incident took place is not shown properly in the spot map or there is variation in the spot map can be decided when evidence is adduced in the trial. FIR has specifically allegation of offence charged. Variation in the statements of the witnesses are quite natural and it rules out any probability of tutoring. Thus, the petition is not maintainable. 10. Having gone through the record and contentions of the parties, it is found that the complainant has specifically alleged that accused persons have pelted the stones, when it was opposed they abused by obscene words. They also inflicted injuries by kicks and fists. After that the accused persons threatened her of her life. 11. MLC report dated 14.1.2013 shows that there is complaint of pain to the complainant. For offence under Section 323 of IPC, if injury is caused simply causing bodily pain, it is sufficient constitute "hurt" as has been held in the order dated 11.11.2014. If there is any contradiction in the statements or the spot map the same can be considered at the time of evaluating the evidence. For the disposal of the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C roving inquiry cannot be made at this stage. It is not open for the High Court to embark upon an enquiry where evidence is reliable or not. In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Salman Salim Khan : ( AIR 2004 SC 1189 ), it is held that though it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under S. 482 of the Code to quash charges framed by the trial Court, same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of charge can be done only at the stage of trial. 12. At this stage, neither it can be held that the FIR is without basis and further proceedings is abuse of process of law. Therefore, the present petition sans merits and is, therefore, dismissed.