JUDGMENT 1. This application under section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.393/2014 as well as quashing the charge sheet filed by the Police Station Hujrat Kotwali, District Gwalior. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that during the pendency of this application, the charges under sections 195A,323,294,341, and 34 of IPC have been framed. It is further submitted that, in the trial, in spite of various opportunities given by the trial Court, the complainant Deepa Kumari is not appearing and not a single witness has been examined in the trial so far. Thus, it is submitted that in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Satish Mehra v. State of NCT. of Delhi, reported in [(2012)13 SCC 614], this petition may be heard and the proceedings can be quashed even if some of the witnesses have been examined. 3. It is submitted that in the present case not a single witness has been examined and the trial Court has not proceeded further from the stage of framing of charge. 4. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that on 23.6.2014, the complainant Deepa Kumari Mahar had come to Gwalior from Neemach by bus at 6:00 in the morning. When she deboarded from bus near the Rocksy bridge, at that time the applicants came there and by blocking her way, started abusing her and threw her on the ground and slapped her and started assaulting her by fists and blows. On hearing her screaming, the nearby people came there and saved her. The applicants were threatening that the complainant must leave Gwalior and should go back to Neemach and should withdraw the case which she has instituted in the Court otherwise she would be killed. 5. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the complainant had lodged a FIR for offence under section 376 of IPC against the applicant No.3. The applicant No.3 was granted bail and the complainant, with an intention to get the bail of the applicant No.3 cancelled, started making false allegations and started lodging false report against the applicant No.3 and other applicants. The applicant No.3 was granted bail and the complainant, with an intention to get the bail of the applicant No.3 cancelled, started making false allegations and started lodging false report against the applicant No.3 and other applicants. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that on 23.6.2014, when the complainant lodged a report in the police station, an enquiry was got done immediately and report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer mentioning therein that when he went to the spot along with the complainant, then he found that no such incident has taken place. On the basis of the enquiry report, the police decided not to register any offence against the applicants. However, when the complainant realized that no action is being taken against the applicants on the basis of her false report, therefore, she made a complaint to the Additional Superintendent of Police (West), City Gwalior who merely on the basis of the allegations made by the complainant and without verifying the fact that whether any enquiry was ever conducted by the police or not and without knowing the outcome of the said enquiry, directed the SHO to register the FIR. Accordingly, under the directions of the Additional Superintendent of Police (West), City Gwalior, the present FIR has been lodged. 6. The counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar v. Madanlal Kapoor reported in [ (2013)3 SCC 330 ], and Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in [ (2013)9 SCC 293 ], and submitted that the enquiry report given by the enquiry officer can be taken into consideration by this Court at this stage also and when the police had found by conducting an immediate enquiry that no incident had taken place, then the FIR, which was lodged on the directions of the Additional Superintendent of Police (West), City Gwalior who issued the directions without conducting any other enquiry, may be quashed. It is further submitted that the applicants had also given some applications pointing out that the directions by the Additional Superintendent of Police (West) City Gwalior have been given without considering the other aspect of the matter and, therefore, their statements may also be recorded but as the direction was given by the superior officer, therefore, the police, without verifying the true facts of the case, has not only registered the FIR but also filed the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that because of the guilty consciousness, the complainant is not coming forward to give evidence in the trial also and the applicants are unnecessarily being harassed for no fault on their part. 7. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that although the enquiry conducted immediately after the complaint made by the complainant is available in the police case diary but as the superior officer, after conducting the enquiry, had given a direction to register the FIR, therefore, the police did not commit any mistake in registering the offence against the applicants. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Before considering the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants, it would be appropriate to consider the letter dated 9.11.2014 written by the Additional Superintendent of Police (West) City Gwalior on the basis of which, the offence was registered by thepolice. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Before considering the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants, it would be appropriate to consider the letter dated 9.11.2014 written by the Additional Superintendent of Police (West) City Gwalior on the basis of which, the offence was registered by thepolice. Order dated 9.11.2014 reads as under :- ^^dk;kZy; vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd ¼if'Pke½ 'kgj] ftyk Xokfy;j eŒizŒ Øekad@viqv@if'Pke@'kgj@Xok-@iq-v-@f'k-iq-@,pvkj-lh@05@14 fnuakd----@---@--- izfr] Fkkuk izHkkjh Fkkuk&dksrokyh fo"k; %& vkosfndk nhik dqekjh egkj iq=h Lo Jh jktdqekj egkj fuoklh ds'ko uxj okMZ Øekad 3 edku ua- 29 rglhy flaxksyh ftyk uhep e-iz- ds f'kdk;rh i= fnuakd 23-6-2014 ij vkijkf/kd izdj.k ntZ dj dk;Zokgh djus ds lEcU/k esaA lUnHkZ %& Jheku~ ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn; Xokfy;j ds i= Øekad oiqv@Xok@f'k-iq-@,p-vkj-lh-@53@14 fnuakd 18-9-14 ds ikyu esaA -------@@------- mijksDr fo"k; esa ys[k gS fd vkosfndk nhik dqekjh egkj iq=h Lo- Jh jktdqekj egkj fuoklh ds'ko uxj okMZ Øekad 3 edku u-a29 rglhy flaxksyh ftyk uhep e-iz- gky &jkenkl xkSre f'kouxj dqEgjiqjk eqjkj ckykth Ldwy ds ikl eqjkj Xokfy;j }kjk vkjksih vuh'k [kku] uQhl] v;wc [kku] ealwj [kku] clhe [kku o cUVyh dks f'kdk;r dh x;h gS ftldh tkWp funsZ'kkuqlkj bl dk;kZy; }kjk dh x;hA f'kdk;rh i= dh tkWp ds nkSjku vkosfndk nhik dqekjh egkj iq=h Lo- Jh jktdqekj egkj fuoklh ds'ko uxj okMZ Øekad 3 edku ua- 29 rglhy flaxksyh ftyk uhep e-iz- dks lquk x;kA mlds lkFk vukosnd vuh'k [kku }kjk 'kknh djus dk >kalk nsdj fd, x, 'kkjhfjd 'kks"k.k ds lEcU/k esa efgyk Fkkuk iM+ko ij iaathc) vi-Ø- 47@14 /kkjk 376 rFkk 506 rk-fg- 3¼1½ 12 ,l lh@,l Vh ,DV dh dk;Zokgh mijkar vkjksih vuhl [kku tekur ij gksdj vkosfndk ¼Qfj-½ nhik egkj ij jkthukek djus ds fy, ncko cuk jgs gS ftlds fy, fnukad 23-6-2014 dks vkosfndk vkbZVh,e dkWyst tkus ds fy, JhukFk VsªoYl ls uhep ls vkdj lqcg 6%00 cts Xokfy;j vk;h Fkh rHkh jkWDlh iqy vihl [kku] uQhl [kku] v;wc [kku] ealwj [kku] clhe [kku o cUVh ;kno }kjk mls ?ksj dj eknjpksn] j.M+h] dqfr;k] fNuky pefj;k dh tkfrxr xkfy;ka nsdj ekjihV dh xbZA ftldh f'kdk;r vkosfndk }kjk mlh fnu Fkkuk gqtjkr dksrokyh esa dh xbZ Fkh ysfdu mDr ?kVuk dh f'kdk;r ij Hkh dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZA ftlds dkj.k vkosfndk ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa dks f'kdk;rsa dj jgh gSA vkosfndk nhik egkj dh O;Fkk lqudj izFken`"V~;k mlds lkFk vukosnd vuhl [kku vkfn }kjk izdj.k esa jkthukek djus ds fy, ncko cukus T;knuh djuk irk pyrk gSaA vr% vkidks funsZf'kZr fd;k tkrk gS fd vuqlwfpr tkfr dh efgyk vkosfndk nhik egkj ds lkFk fnukad 23-6-2014 dks jkWDlh iqy ij gqbZ vkijkf/kd ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa vkosfndk }kjk Fkkuk dksrokyh esa izLrqr fd, x, f'kdk;rh i= ij ls vukosnd vuhl [kku vkfn ds fo:) rRdky vkijkf/kd izdj.k ntZ dj foospuk ds nkSjku miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fof/k lEer dk;Zokgh dh tkosA layXu % vkosfndk ds ?kVuk fnuakd 23-6-2014 dh QksVks izfr&1 izfr ¼jkgqy dqekj yks<+k½ vfr-iqfyl v/kh{kd 'kgj¼if'pe½ ftyk Xokfy;j 10. From the plain reading of this letter, it is clear that on the basis of the direction given by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, the Additional Superintendent of Police (West), City Gwalior conducted the enquiry. In this order, it is specifically mentioned that during the enquiry, the complainant Ms. Deepa Kumari Mahar was heard. Apart from the allegations made by Deepa Kumari Mahar, it is also mentioned that the complainant had made a complaint to Police Station Hujrat Kotwali on the very same day but no action was taken on the complaint made by the complainant, therefore, she is constantly making complaints to the senior officers. It is again specifically mentioned that on considering the plight of the complainant Deepa Kumari Mahar, it appears that the applicants are pressurizing her to compromise the case which she had initially instituted against the applicant No.3. 11. Thus, it is clear that although Senior Superintendent of Police, Gwalior had directed the Additional Superintendent of Police (West), City Gwalior to conduct the enquiry but it appears that except hearing the complainant, no other action was taken by the Additional Superintendent of Police (West), City Gwalior and merely on the basis of the complaint made by Ms Deepa Kumari Mahar and without verifying that whether any action was taken by the police authorities on the complaint made by her or not, directed for registration of the FIR. The Government Advocate has also admitted that on the report of Deepa Kumari Mahar dated 23.6.2014 immediately an enquiry was got done and ultimately it was found that no such incident had taken place. 12. From the case diary, it appears that the SHO, Police Station AJK, District Gwalior by its letter dated 24.11.2014 had produced the enquiry report before the Court of Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], Gwalior and the copy of the said letter and the enquiry report are also the part of the case diary. 13. It appears that from the enquiry report dated 10.7.2014, that after the complaint was made by the complainant, the statements of the independent witnesses were recorded who stated that at the time of the incident, they were fetching water from public tap and no such incident has taken place. 13. It appears that from the enquiry report dated 10.7.2014, that after the complaint was made by the complainant, the statements of the independent witnesses were recorded who stated that at the time of the incident, they were fetching water from public tap and no such incident has taken place. A Rojnamcha Sana dated 23.6.2014 is also available in which it is mentioned that immediately after the complaint was made by the complainant, the police party went to the spot alongwith the complainant and matter was got verified and the complaint was found suspicious. 14. A Rojnamcha Sana dated 23.6.2014 is also available in which it is mentioned that immediately after the complaint was made by the complainant, the police party went to the spot alongwith the complainant and matter was got verified and the complaint was found suspicious. 14. The copy of the enquiry report dated 10.7.2014 and the copy of the Rojnamcha Sana dated 23.6.2014 are as under :- ^^Fkkuk dksrokuh Xokfy;j ftyk Xokfy;j e-iz- Ø- ---------------- fnuakd 10-7-2014] t-lq-@42@14 izfr] Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn; ftyk Xokfy;j fo"k; & vkosfndk nhik dqekjh iq=h jktdqekj fuoklh flxkSyh ftyk uhep e-iz- dh f'kdk;r dh tkWp fjiksVZ ckor~A lanHkZ & Jheku~ ds vkns'k i= tulquokbZ@1304 flaxksyh ftyk uhep e-iz- dh f'kdk;r dh tkWp fjiksVZ ckor~A egksn;] lsok esa fuosnu gS fd f'kdk;rh i= mijksDr tkWp dh xbZ rks gkykr fuEu ik, x,A ;g fd] vkosfndk nhik dqekjh dk izse izlax vukosnd vuhl [kkau ls vlsZ ls py jgk Fkk tcfd vuhl [kku iwoZ ls 'kknh'kqnk gS tc vkosfndk }kjk vuhl [kku esa vius lkFk 'kknh djus dk ncko Mkyk rFkk vuhl }kjk 'kknh ugha djus ij vkosfndk }kjk fnukad 9-3-2014 ;s efgyk Fkkuk Xokfy;j esa vius lkFk gq, cykRdkj dh fjiksVZ ntZ djkbZ xbZ ftl ij ls efgyk Fkkuk ds vijk/k Ø-47@14 /kkjk 376] 506 Hkknfo 3¼1½¼12½ ,llh ,lVh ,DV dk izdj.k iathc) gksdj pkyku U;k;ky; izLrqr fd;k x;k gS izdj.k fopkjk/khu U;k;ky; gS rFkk vkjksih vuhl [kku ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k x;k gS izdj.k fopkjk/khu U;k;ky; gS rFkk vkjksih vuhl [kku ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk tekur ij gSA ;g fd] vkosfndk dks vkjksih ds tekur ij NwVus dh irk pyrs gh vukosnd vuhl [kku o mlds vikfgt firk uQhl [kku] lkys ealwj [kku] olhe [kku rFkk caVh ;kno odhy ds f[kykQ ,d izk;osV bLrxk'kk ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa fd;k x;k gS rFkk vkosndx.k dks tsy fHktokus ds fy, eux<+r dgkuh crkdj f'kdk;rsa djrh jgrh gS rFkk Loa; dFku nsus gsrq mifLFfkr ugha feyrh gSA ;g fd fnaukd 23-6-2014 dks vkosfndk nhik dqekjh }kjk ,d f'kdk;r vukosndx.k ds fo:) fpVful dh xksB esa mls v'Ykhy xkyh nsus o ekjihV dj /kedh nsus ckor~ dh xbZ Fkh ftldh ekSds ij tkdj vkosfndk ds lkFk rLnhd dh xbZ tgkW eksgYykokfl;ksa ds fu"i{k :i ls crk;k fd lk{kh ogkW crkbZ xbZ ?kVuk ds oDr uyh ls ikuh Hkjrs Fks ogkW ij vkosfndk ds lkFk vuksndx.k }kjk fdlh Hkh izdkj dh dksbZ ?kVuk gksuk iwjh rjg ls vlR; crk;k ftldh fjiksVZ jkstukepk vke esa n'kkZbZ xbZ gSA ;g fd] vkosfndk us viuk dFku Hkh ugh fn;k vkSj viuk fuokl Jhjke /keZ'kkyk esa crk;k ftldh ryk'k Jhjke /keZ'kkyk esa dh xbZ ogkW jguk Hkh ugha ik;k x;k vkosfndk ls ckj&ckj eksckbZy ij laidZ fd;k x;k rks uhep esa gksuk ik;k x;k rFkk viuk LokLFk; [kjkc gksuk crkrs dFku gsrq miyC/k ugha gksuk crk;k rFkk Qksu ij vukosndx.k dh tsy fHktokus dh ckr dgh gSA ;g fd] xqeyk tkWp ls vkosfndk }kjk dh f'kdk;r vLkR; ikbZ xbZ gSA vr% tkWp fjiksVZ voyksdukFkZ Jheku th dh lsok esa lknj izsf"kr gSA layXu izi= & 1- vLkR; f'kdk;r i= e; dofjaV ysVj o izi= ds 2- udy jkstukepk 3- dFku vukosnd & nks 4- iapukek rLnhd 5- vukosndx.k }kjk dh xbZ f'kdk;rksa dh Nk;k izfr;ka eqrkfcd lwph^^ The copy of Panchanama is as under: ^^iapukek^^ Fkkuk dksrOkkyh Xokfy;j ftyk Xokfy;j e-iz- LFkku & fpVful dh xksB Fkkuk dksrokyh Xokfy;j uke iapku & 1- x.ks'k oekZ iq= jkefd'ku oekZ vk;q 60 o"kZ fuoklh fpVful dh xksB 2- vkseizdk'k iq= lhrkjke dksyh vk;q 43 o"kZ fuoklh lnj 3- gsaer dqekj iq= Jh lhrkjkek dksyh vk;q 49 o"kZ fuoklh lnj mijksDr iapku ds le{k vkosfndk dqekjh nhik dqekjh iq=h jktdqekj fuoklh ds'kouxj rglhy flaxjkSyh ftyk uhep e-iz- vius }kjk vukosnd }kjk vuhl [kku] uQhl [kku] caVh ;kno] ealwj [kku] olhe [kku] }kjk v'yhy xkfy;ka nsdj >xM+k ekjihV djuk crk, tkus ij rRdky ekSds ij tkdj vkosfndk ds lkFk rLnhd dh rks vkosfndk }kjk fd;k x;k vkosnu vLkR; o fujk/kkjk ik;k x;kA ekSds ds fuoklh mijksDr iapku ekStwn dks ogkW ij vkosfndk o vukosndx.k dk ogkW x;k ,oa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ fookn >xM+k ekjihV gksuk ugh ik;k x;k ekSds ij iapukek cuk;k x;kA gLrk{kj iapku 1- x.ks'k oekZ 2- vkseizdk'k 3- gsaer dqekj^^ 15. Thus, it is clear that immediately after the report was made by the complainant, the police party was sent to the spot along with the complainant and the police party, after thorough enquiry conducted in presence of the complainant, came to a conclusion that the complaint made by the complainant is suspicious. The said fact was not only reported in writing to the SHO, Police Station, Hujrat Kotwali, District Gwalior but it was mentioned in the Rojnamcha Sana also. It appears that thereafter again a detailed enquiry was got done by the police and by report dated 10.7.2014, it was opined that the complaint made by the complainant is false. Thus, it is clear that the Additional Superintendent of Police (West), City Gwalior, without considering the fact that not only an enquiry on the very same date was conducted immediately after the complaint but again a detailed enquiry was conducted by the police and on both the occasions, it was found that no incident had ever taken place on 23.6.2014 as alleged by the complainant and thus no action was taken against the applicants on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant on 26.3.2014. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar (supra), has held as under :- “30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under section 482 of the CrPC :- (i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the Court, and would not serve the ends of justice? (v) If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under section 482 of the CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious Court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” The Supreme Court in the case of Prashant Bharti (supra), has held as under :- “25. Based on the holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances summarized in the foregoing two paragraphs; we are satisfied, that all the steps delineated by this Court in Rajiv Thapar’s case (supra), stand - satisfied. All the steps can only be answered in the affirmative. We therefore have no hesitation whatsoever in concluding, that judicial conscience of the High Court ought to have persuaded it, on the basis of the material available before it, while passing the impugned order, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused-appellant, in exercise of the inherent powers vested with it under section 482 of the CrPC. Accordingly, based on the conclusions drawn hereinabove, we are satisfied, that the first information report registered under sections 328, 354 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant-accused, and the consequential chargesheet dated 28.6.2007, as also the framing of charges by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi on 1.12.2008, deserves to be quashed. The same are accordingly quashed.” 16. The same are accordingly quashed.” 16. If the enquiry report dated 10.7.014, panchanama dated 23.6.2014 and rojnamcha sana entry dated 23.6.2014 are taken into consideration, then it would be clear that immediately after the alleged incident on the complaint of the complainant, the police went to the spot alongwith the complainant and the entire incident was found to be suspicious and in the detailed enquiry which was conducted by the police, it was found that in fact no incident has taken place. 17. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that prosecution of the applicants for the above mentioned offences in Crime No.393/2014 would be nothing but the misuse of process of law. 18. Accordingly, relying on the enquiry report dated 10.7.2014 as well as panchanama dated 23.6.2014, the FIR in Crime No.393/2014 and the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case pending against the applicants are hereby quashed. 19. The application succeeds and is hereby allowed.