Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 465 (MP)

Tinku Rajoriya v. State of M. P.

2015-04-22

S.K.PALO

body2015
JUDGMENT : S.K. Palo, J. 1. Heard. 2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. invoking inherent power of this Court seeking relief to quash the FIR registered as Crime No. 09/2013 dated 13.01.2013 registered at Police Station Bhander, District Datia, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 253 and 186 of IPC and subsequent proceeding against the present petitioners. 3. Briefly stated facts are that on 13.01.2013, the police officials were informed that on Bhander-Lahar Road an accident has occurred. When the police officials reached the spot, they found that one truck/dumper bearing No. MP07-HB-2697 has been surrounded and the road between Bhander and Lahar was blocked by people. It is alleged that the petitioners were also present among the people. These people caused road block by placing stones and broken wooden trees and they were shouting anti-government slogans and demanded compensation before opening the road block. The Naib Tehsildar Pramod Garg, Collector and other Government Officials tried to disperse the crowd but the people present did not allow to do so. These persons also prevented the officials from performing Panchnama of the dead body and further obstructed the road causing difficulty for common people. Against Sanjeev, Rajesh, Rajveer, Mahesh, Dheeru, Suresh, Rajendra, Bhagwan Singh, Kunwar pal, Manish, Dhruv Pathak, Raghvendra Mishra, Ashish Choubey and present petitioners Tinku Rajoriya and Rinku Rajoriya who were also among the crowd to commit the unlawfulness. The Town Inspector of the Police Station Bhander has lodged the F.I.R. 4. On behalf of the petitioners, it is submitted that various witnesses have recorded their statements, which included Ajay, Rajsingh Rana, Dilip Singh, Brijendra Singh, Jiledar Singh, Kamlesh Sharma, Rambihari Soni, Ram Singh who are the police personnel and statements of independent witnesses have also been recorded namely Salim Khan, Goverdhan Sahu, Balwan Singh, Munna Mansoori, Naim Khan, Hariom Sahu by the Police. 5. In the Statement of Pramod Garg and Neeraj Kumar Shrivastava dated 17.02.2013, they clearly stated that the petitioners Rinku Rajoriya and Tinku Rajoriya were not present at the time of incident. 6. It is further claimed that on the application of the present petitioners, an independent inquiry was conducted by the SDOP Bhander, wherein various statements of concerned officials, who were present at the spot at the time of incident were recorded. SDOP found that the certain accused persons were present except Rinku Rajoriya and Tinku Rajoriya. 6. It is further claimed that on the application of the present petitioners, an independent inquiry was conducted by the SDOP Bhander, wherein various statements of concerned officials, who were present at the spot at the time of incident were recorded. SDOP found that the certain accused persons were present except Rinku Rajoriya and Tinku Rajoriya. Sanjeev & Suresh Yadav. During the investigation by the SDOP nearly five independent witnesses have recorded their statements and clearly indicated that the petitioners were not present at the spot on the time of incident. The medical papers of the petitioners regarding their illness, wherein, the Government doctor has advised them to bed rest, was given to the SDOP. Charge sheet has been filed on 31.03.2014. The learned Trial Court took cognizance in the matter vide order dated 19.09.2014. The same was challenged by the petitioners in a criminal revision which was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 23.01.2015. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application and stated that the report of SDOP has no overriding effect on the statements of the witnesses. 8. FIR lodged on 13.01.2013 at Crime No. 09/2013 registered at Police Station Bhander, District Datia, shows that among other persons petitioners Rinku Rajoriya and Tinku Rajoriya were present alongwith 400 to 500 persons. As per the FIR, Pramod Garg (Naib Tehsildar) and Neeraj Shrivastava (Patwari) were present at the time of incident. But these witnesses have clearly stated that the petitioners were not present at the spot. 9. Beside the aforesaid, the report dated 24.02.2014 submitted by the SDOP, Bhander to the Superintendent of Police, Datia shows that Rinku Rajoriya, Tinku Rajoriya, Sanjeev Singh, Rajveer, Suresh, Bhagwan Singh and Mahesh were not present at the time of incident. These facts cannot be over looked. It is abundantly clearly that the High Court would exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. where it finds that non-interference shall result in abuse of the process of the Court or failure of justice. Where the complaint does not make out any triable case against the petitioners. 10. These facts cannot be over looked. It is abundantly clearly that the High Court would exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. where it finds that non-interference shall result in abuse of the process of the Court or failure of justice. Where the complaint does not make out any triable case against the petitioners. 10. The provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. invoking inherent jurisdiction has been laid down in Balkar Singh v. Jagdish Kumar, reported in 2005 CriLJ 1712 (SC), which reads as if the Court is satisfied that there is great miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Court or the required statutory provision has not been complied with or there is failure of justice, in that event, it is but the duty of the Court to have it correct at the inception. Where the criminal proceedings lodged would be merely result in harassment to the petitioner, the proceedings would be quashed. 11. In Kunstocom Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Gilt Pack Ltd., reported in AIR 2002 SC 739 : (2002) 2 SCC 383 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 336 : 2002 CrLJ 1012 (1014) (SC), has been held that:- "There is no hard and fast rule that objection as to the maintainability of the complaint and cognizance of offence should be allowed to be raised at the time of framing of charge. Such pleas could be considered by the High Court in petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings." 12. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to exercise the inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of Court and secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The FIR, as regarding petitioner Rinku Rajoriya and Tinku Rajoriya registered at Crime No. 09/2013 at Police Station Bhander district Datia, and consequent criminal proceedings, if any, is quashed. 13. With the aforesaid, this petition is allowed.