Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 355 (MP)

Thakur Singh @ Jai Bhuriya v. State of M. P.

2016-04-30

D.K.PALIWAL

body2016
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the FIR lodged at Crime No.23/2014 registered at Police Station Kalidevi, District Jhabua and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant Babu Bhuriya has lodged a report on 7.2.2014 that at around 6 p.m. he was coming from Kalidevi market and when he reached near Forest naka one Bolero jeep stopped near him and one Varsingh and Thakur came out from the jeep and started abusing him in filthy language and told that he has filed false complaint against them and Varsingh gave a blow by means of razor blade on his neck and Thakur and Varsingh said that today he has been saved and threatened to kill him in future and thereafter they flew away from the spot. On the basis of the said report, FIR at Crime No.23/2014 for offence under sections 294, 324, 506, 34 of the IPC has been registered and after due investigation charge sheet has been filed under sections 294, 324, 506, 34 of the IPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Jhabua. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that false report has been lodged against the petitioner. At about 5-6 years ago Babu s/o Pidiya and his associates committed the murder of the brother of the petitioner and the criminal appeal is pending before this Court. It is submitted that on 7.12.2014 the petitioner was not present on the spot and he was present at Indore, which is about 150 kms. away. It is further submitted that Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) has enquired into the matter and found that the petitioner was not present on the spot and he has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is also submitted that the concerning SHO. has also submitted a report to the Superintend of Police, Jhabua saying that the name of Thakur has been removed during the investigation. In view of the aforesaid the prosecution of the petitioner would be abuse of process of law and prayed for quashing of the FIR and the proceedings pending before the lower Court. 4. has also submitted a report to the Superintend of Police, Jhabua saying that the name of Thakur has been removed during the investigation. In view of the aforesaid the prosecution of the petitioner would be abuse of process of law and prayed for quashing of the FIR and the proceedings pending before the lower Court. 4. The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State submitting that in the case diary statements as well as in the statement recorded under sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC there are allegations against the present petitioner and looking to the prima facie evidence, the present petition cannot allowed. 5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the FIR, which has been lodged immediately after the incident, it is found that the name of the petitioner and his role played by him in the offence have been mentioned. In the case diary statement complainant Babu has categorically stated and the petitioner and the co-accused abused him and thereafter Varsingh caused injury to him by means of razor blade on his neck and both Thakur and Varsingh threatened to kill him. Tolki Bai, Dhanna, Paarsingh and Kamlibai in their case diary statements have stated that the complainant narrated the incident to them. As per medical report of Babu one incised wound has been found on his neck and the injury has been caused by sharp object. Complainant Babu has been examined by the doctor on the same day. In the statements recorded under section 164 of the CrPC complainant Babu has categorically stated that the petitioner Thakur Singh and Varsingh inflicted injury to him by means of razor blade. 6. As per report of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police, Jhabua submitted to the Senior Superintend of Police Jhabua and it is mentioned that after investigation and scrutiny the name of Thakur Singh has been removed from the charge sheet. The report submitted by the Senior Superintend of Police, Jhabua to Inspector General of Police indicates that during the investigation and scrutiny the name of the Thakur has been removed. 7. Taking into consideration that in the report, lodged immediately after the incident, the name of the petitioner and the role played by him is specifically mentioned and in the statements under sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC also the name of the petitioner has been mentioned. 7. Taking into consideration that in the report, lodged immediately after the incident, the name of the petitioner and the role played by him is specifically mentioned and in the statements under sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC also the name of the petitioner has been mentioned. The other witnesses have also stated that complainant Babu told them that the petitioner and the co-accused abused him and also caused injury to the complainant. Thus considering the material collected during the investigation, prima facie, there is sufficient evidence available on record against the present petitioner. In view of the above, no case is made out under section 482 of the CrPC. The present petition is, therefore, dismissed as devoid of merit.