Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 958 (MP)

Babu @ Akash Ghosh v. State of M. P.

2017-09-01

ANAND PATHAK

body2017
ORDER 1. Present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under section 482 of CrPC for quashment of FIR registered vide Crime No.177/2017 at Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior for an offence under sections 302 and 34 of IPC. 2. As per story of the prosecution, Sub-Inspector Udayveer Singh Tomar posted at Police Station Hazira investigated a Marg Enquiry and after enquiry it was surfaced that on 21.4.2017, Kartar Singh Yadav was beaten up by the present petitioner in front of house of Babulal Bansal and the injuries sustained by him proved fatal and he died in the morning at 7 a.m. In the Marg Enquiry, the present petitioner, co-accused Goldi alias Dheeraj Chahar, Sanjay Arya and one another person were found to be the culprits and therefore, FIR has been registered and investigation has been proceeded with. The said investigation conducted by the prosecution is under challenge before this Court. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts of the case reflect that petitioner has been implicated as an accused because a person has given the information to the complainant that his brother Kartar Singh has sustained several injuries because of accident and on reaching at the relevant place, complainant found his brother Kartar Singh in injured condition. Blood was oozing from his injuries and he was taken to the hospital/trauma centre, where, he succumbed to injuries received by him and therefore, case has been registered. According to him, no eye witness has been interrogated or investigated by the prosecution to fasten any liability over the petitioner. He has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that post-mortem report suggest the cardio respiratory failure as reason for death, which cannot be attributable due to beating caused by the accused. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [ AIR 1992 SC 604 ], as well as Rampal Singh v. State of U.P. [ (2012)8 SCC 289 ]. He prayed for quashment of the FIR. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. According to him, investigation is still going on and during the pendency of investigation, petition under section 482 CrPC is not maintainable. He prayed for quashment of the FIR. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. According to him, investigation is still going on and during the pendency of investigation, petition under section 482 CrPC is not maintainable. For this purpose, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahu [(2006)2 SCC (Cri.) 272]. He further referred the statement taken under section 161 of CrPC of one Chhuttan alias Amit Chauhan and submits that he was the eye witness of the incident and he categorically referred the name of petitioner as one of the accused beating the deceased. Another ground raised by counsel for respondents No.1 to 3/State is factum of absconsion of petitioner. He is fleeing away from justice for last many months and reward of Rs.4,000/- has also been declared over him to bring him to the books, therefore, he cannot be given any indulgence. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant also echoed the same spirit and prayed for dismissal of the case. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. From the record, it appears that petitioner is absconding for last many months and, therefore, he is not cooperating in the investigation. Chhuttan alias Amit Chauhan has specifically made his statement under section 161 of CrPC, wherein, he referred the name of present petitioner, therefore, petitioner cannot be given any benefit at this stage because he has to show his bona fide also which are lacking in the present case on behalf of accused. When the investigation is pending and petitioner is declared as absconder because he is avoiding prosecution, therefore, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. Petitioner has to cooperate in the investigation by making himself available before the investigating authority so that matter would be proceeded in accordance with law. No interference is required at this stage. This is not such exceptional case, wherein, any indulgence can be shown under the extraordinary jurisdiction of section 482 of CrPC. Prosecution is directed to complete the investigation at the earliest. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.