Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 633 (MP)

Amit v. State of M. P.

2015-06-19

S.K.GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT: S.K. Gupta, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No. 144/2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC and its subsequent criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 191/2005 against the petitioner. 2. As per prosecution case, complainant has informed the police that during patrolling in jungle, two dead-bodies were found. On this information, Merg was registered and enquiry was conducted. During enquiry, postmortem of the dead-bodies was conducted and as per the postmortem report, it was found that death of both the deceased was caused by throttling. Hence, offence was registered under Section 302 and 201of IPC and investigation was conducted. During investigation, it was found that Munshilal and Amit along with two others have committed the aforesaid murders. After investigation, police filed the charge-sheet against accused Munshilal and petitioner Amit showing him absconding. It is further mentioned in the charge-sheet that investigation against two co-accused is pending, hence, after completion of investigation separate supplementary charge-sheet will be filed against them. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the entire criminal proceedings pending against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not named in the FIR and FIR has been registered against the unknown persons. He further submitted that there is no eye-witness in the case and petitioner has falsely been implicated only on account of political pressure. In continuation, he further submitted that Lakhan Singh S/o Pratap (deceased) and Ramkrishna and Raghuveer Singh, brother of the deceased Rambabu have not stated in their statement, recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioner, however, they have stated in their statements that deceased were taken on bike by Devendra and Ramkumar. It is also submitted that co-accused Munshilal was also falsely implicated in the case and he was acquitted by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 165/2005 by the Second Additional Session Judge (FTC) Ganjbasoda on dated 6.5.2010. Against that judgment of acquittal leave to appeal filed by the State was also dismissed by this Court in Case No. 4793/2010 on dated 13.12.2010. Against that judgment of acquittal leave to appeal filed by the State was also dismissed by this Court in Case No. 4793/2010 on dated 13.12.2010. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that case is rest only on the circumstantial evidence mainly of last seen, even then no evidence is available on the record that petitioner was in the company of the deceased soon before the death. On these grounds learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for dismissal of the petition. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 also opposes the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Firstly I would like to discuss the scope of section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259 relied upon the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the court can quash the criminal proceedings under section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) has held as under: "32. In State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, this court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: "(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) 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 officer 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. (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. Keeping in view the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that where the allegation 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, such FIR can be quashed. 8. Now come to the factual aspect of the case in hand. From perusal of the entire record, it is undisputed that FIR has been lodged against the unknown persons and the petitioner is not named in the FIR. It is also undisputed that Lakhan Singh S/o Pratap (deceased) and Ramkrishan and Raghuveer Singh brother of the deceased Rambabu, stated in their statement, recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C., that deceased were taken away by Devendra and Ramkumar on bike from the house, thereafter on dated 25.5.2005 they informed to Lakhan Singh, Ramkrishan and Raghuveer Singh on telephone that two dead bodies are lying in the jungle and you come and identified them. Thereafter dead bodies of the deceased Pratap and Rambabu were found and the offence against unknown persons has been registered. It is also undisputed that co-accused Munshilal has been acquitted by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 165/2005 by the Second Additional Session Judge (FTC) Ganjbasoda. It is also undisputed that against that judgment leave to appeal was also dismissed by this Court on dated 13.12.2010 in Case No. 4793/2010 with this observation that skeleton of the deceased was found two months from the date of missing of the deceased. No missing report was lodged by the complainant side. Therefore, it is clear that on the same set of evidence which is available on record against the petitioner where co-accused Munshilal has been acquitted by the Court, the petitioner cannot be convicted on the same set of evidence and continuation of such proceedings against the petitioner is futile exercise. Even then, after perusal of the entire record, prima facie there is no evidence available on the record to implicate the petitioner in the case. 9. Even then, after perusal of the entire record, prima facie there is no evidence available on the record to implicate the petitioner in the case. 9. In such premises, looking to the facts of the case in hand, in my opinion, the case of the petitioner covered by the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Bhajan Lal (supra). Hence, FIR and criminal proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 10. Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is hereby allowed and the FIR registered at Crime No. 144/2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC and its subsequent criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 191/2005 against the petitioner is hereby quashed.