Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 841 (MP)

Devendra Singh v. State of M. P.

2018-10-03

ANAND PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. The present petition under section 482 of CrPC, has been preferred at the instance of petitioner who is taking exception to the registration of FIR dated 6.8.2015 (Annexure P-1) vide Crime No. 309/2015, registered at Police Station Ashoknagar (Dehat) for alleged offences under sections 447, 294, 506 and 343 of IPC and the consequential proceedings. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that between petitioner and respondent No. 4 a dispute regarding ownership of land existed. Father of petitioner is owner and possessor of the land in question as mentioned in the FIR. Land was purchased by the father of petitioner vide sale deed dated 2.8.1979 (Annexure P-2). It appears that father of respondent No. 4 filed civil suit against the father of petitioner on the basis of seeking relief for declaration and possession and the same was allowed by the trial Court. Against the said judgment and decree dated 23.9.2002 passed by the trial Court, father of the petitioner filed first appeal before II Additional District Judge, Ashoknagar and vide judgement and decree dated 11.7.2005 appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by the father of petitioner and categorically held that father of respondent No. 4 is not the owner and possessor of the suit property and the land was declared to be the ownership of State Government. 3. Against the judgment and decree dated 11.7.2005, respondent No. 4 filed second appeal bearing S.A. No. 1373/2005 and the same is pending consideration for hearing on admission. 4. It is the allegation of the petitioner that by suppressing these material facts in regard to decision by competent civil Court in regard to possession of the disputed land, respondent No. 4 on 30.6.2015 filed M.Cr.C. No. 6407/2015 before this Court and sought direction in light of the judgment rendered by Hon' ble apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and another, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 01. The Court passed innocuous order without adverting on merit of the case. Police authorities taken that direction as if FIR is to be registered and, therefore, registered the FIR against the petitioner. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the said M.Cr.C. No. 6407/2015, allegations levelled were that Swarn Singh himself died on 26.5.2008 and therefore, death certificate filed as Annexure P-6 is forged. Police authorities taken that direction as if FIR is to be registered and, therefore, registered the FIR against the petitioner. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the said M.Cr.C. No. 6407/2015, allegations levelled were that Swarn Singh himself died on 26.5.2008 and therefore, death certificate filed as Annexure P-6 is forged. Petitioner submits that respondent No. 4 used false certificate as his grounds for seeking such directions from the Court. 6. It is further submitted that earlier also on the same set of facts, the complaint was made over which FIR was registered under sections 379/34, 148, 440 and 506II of the IPC and after trial, Competent Criminal Court considering the judgment passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ashoknagar acquitted the petitioner on merit. Copy of the said judgment dated 20.11.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class is Annexure P-7 and judgment dated 28.2.2015 passed by Gram Nyayalaya as Annexure P-7A is placed and order dated 5.2.2015 passed by this Court in Cr.R. No. 378/2008 is Annexure P-7B are referred to submit that controversy has already been decided, but still respondents are trying to harass the petitioner, therefore, fresh set of litigation is started against the petitioner. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 also opposed the prayer and submits that no case for interference is made out and prayed for dismissal of this petition. Respondent has relied upon the case of Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P. and others reported in 2015(2) JLJ 1 (SC)= (2015) 11 SCC 260 . 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. 10. It is the case where it appears that respondent has suppressed the material facts to obtain some order from this Court, which amounts to abuse of process of law. If the application preferred by the respondent vide M.Cr.C. No. 6407/2015 (Annexure P-4), is seen wherein pleadings of petition under section 482 of CrPC in paragraph 2 indicates that name of Swarn Singh has been mentioned. Said Swarn Singh was alleged to create an obstruction in cultivating the land. Death certificate of Swarn Singh is placed by the petitioner as Annexure P-6, in which his death occurred on 26.5.2008. Said Swarn Singh was alleged to create an obstruction in cultivating the land. Death certificate of Swarn Singh is placed by the petitioner as Annexure P-6, in which his death occurred on 26.5.2008. The same also reflects in the order dated 20.11.2005 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashoknagar and order dated 28.2.2015 (Annexure P-7A) passed by Gram Nyayalaya, Ashoknagar in which Swarn Singh was referred deceased whereas M.Cr.C. No. 6407/2015 was filed on 30.6.2015 it means prior to filing of this M.Cr.C., order dated 28.2.2015 was passed by the Gram Nayayalaya in case No. 187/2010. Therefore, it was still within the knowledge of respondent No. 4 that Swarn Singh is no more. Still misrepresentation of facts caused in the petition and the order has been obtained which was although innocuous in nature but harassed by respondent No. 4 to get the FIR registered. Here, Station House Officer erred in registration of FIR because it was basically a civil dispute tried to be converted into criminal liability. Be that as it may at the relevant point of time ingredients for some other alleged acts might have persuaded the authority, but it is contended that the respondent No. 4 suppressed the material facts not only the death of Swarn Singh, but also judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court dated 11-06-2005 was suppressed before the authorities as well as before this Court in earlier round of litigation. 11. The fraud vitiates everything and if a person came with suppression of facts he is not entitled for any relief from the Court. [See. Badami Bai v. Bhali, (2012) 11 SCC 574 ] 12. Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, [ AIR 1992 SC 604 ], laid down the different exigencies under which interference under section 482 of CrPC can be made. [See. Badami Bai v. Bhali, (2012) 11 SCC 574 ] 12. Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, [ AIR 1992 SC 604 ], laid down the different exigencies under which interference under section 482 of CrPC can be made. Following exigencies are as under : “(a) 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; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognÁable 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; (c) 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; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognÁable offence but constitute only a non-cognÁable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2)of the Code; (e) 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; (f) 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; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or (Devendra Singh v. State of M.P. and others) 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.” 13. Perusal of present set of facts reveals that it is a fit case to interfere as per guidelines referred above. 14. Perusal of present set of facts reveals that it is a fit case to interfere as per guidelines referred above. 14. Besides that in earlier round of litigation also almost on same set of facts after trial, petitioner got acquitted vide Annexures P-7, 7A and 7B. Almost on the same set of facts, respondent No. 4 again tried to harass the petitioner for ulterior motive. This is not permissible in law. Scope of section 482 of CrPC is to meet the ends of justice and to check abuse of process of law. It is the case where respondent No. 4 is abusing the process of law. Trial Court at the time of framing of charges ought to have seen this component so that an innocent may not have harassed repeatedly. 15. Resultantly, petition preferred by the petitioner is hereby allowed and registration of FIR vide Crime No. 309/2015 at registered Police Station Ashoknagar (Dehat) for alleged offences under sections 447, 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC against the petitioner and the consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. Petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.