Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 528 (MP)

KEDAR SHARMA v. STATE OF M. P.

2015-05-01

D.K.PALIWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No. 74/2013 at P. S. Naiabadi 2. Factual matrix of the case is that the complainant made a complaint against the petitioner alleging that she belongs to scheduled caste and posted as a Sub Excise Inspector in the Office of District Excise, Mandsaur. On 7-9-2013 petitioner met her in Office premises and told that what she did by making complaint against him and addressing her "Chamarin". Petitioner also said that he would teach her lesson and threatened to1 defame her blaming her to be characterless. It is alleged that earlier also on 25-5-2013 petitioner has committed with her and a complaint was made by the complainant to the Senior Officers and the matter was under inquiry, however no action has been taken. It is further alleged that the complainant feeling unsafe, therefore, prayed for taking action against the petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid complaint crime No. 74/2013 under section 354(1), 354-D and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have been registered against the petitioner. After due investigation charge-sheet has been filed before the Special Judge. The learned Special Judge after having considered the material placed before him, framed the charges under section 354(1), 354-D and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Being aggrieved this petition has been filed. 3. It is submitted that a false case has been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was posted as Assistant District Excise Officer, Mandsaur while complainant was posted as Excise Sub-Inspector, Mandsaur. On 22-5-2013 respondent No. 3 telephoned the petitioner and demanded the vehicle. Petitioner asked her to come in uniform with her staff at the District Excise Office but she replied that she has qualified PSC and has completed her doctorate and she understands more than the petitioner. On 23-5-2013 respondent No. 3 threatened petitioner to involve in a false atrocities case and petitioner has made a written complaint to the District Excise Officer, Mandsaur. After getting the information of written report made by the petitioner, respondent No. 3 made a false complaint. Thereafter inquiry was made. It was found that complaint made by respondent No. 3 is false. After getting the information of written report made by the petitioner, respondent No. 3 made a false complaint. Thereafter inquiry was made. It was found that complaint made by respondent No. 3 is false. It is further submitted that respondent No. 3 further made a complaint against the petitioner to City Superintendent Office Police, Mandsaur making false allegations. It is submitted that bare perusal of first information report no offence is made out against the petitioner. The first information report is nothing but abuse of process of law. It is submitted that the ingredients of offence under section 354-D of and section 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are missing, hence prayed for quashment of first information report. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 submitted that upon the complaint made by respondent No. 3 due investigation has been made and charge-sheet has been filed, hence first information report cannot be quashed. 5. I have gone through the first information report, it reveals that no allegation of demand or request for sexual favours or making sexually coloured remarks have been made in the complaint. Similarly the word "Chamarin" has been mentioned but essential ingredients of offence punishable under section 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are missing. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 , laid down the guidelines when the power under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code could be exercised. These are as under :- "1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR, do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by Police Officers under section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Office without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 7. In Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122 , the Apex Court has observed as under :- "The power under section 482 of the Code should be used sparingly and with circumspection to prevent abuse of process of Court, but not to stifle legitimate prosecution. There can be no two opinions on this, but, if it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuation of a prosecution would lead to abuse of process of Court, the power under section 482 of the Code must be exercised and proceedings must be quashed." 8. In the instant case the ingredients of section 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and section 354-D of Indian Penal Code are missing. On inquiry also the allegations have been found to be baseless. Thus, the matter is squarely covers under the guild lines of Bhajanlal (supra) and Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. 9. In the instant case the ingredients of section 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and section 354-D of Indian Penal Code are missing. On inquiry also the allegations have been found to be baseless. Thus, the matter is squarely covers under the guild lines of Bhajanlal (supra) and Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. 9. In view of the aforesaid, in my considered opinion, prosecution of the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law, hence first information report deserves to be quashed. Consequently, this petition is allowed and first information report lodged against the petitioner is hereby quashed. 10. Accordingly, M.Cr.C. No. 10145/2013 stands disposed of C.C as per rules.