Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 111 (MP)

Rajiya Khatoon (Ku. ) v. State of M. P.

2019-02-01

J.P.GUPTA

body2019
ORDER : This petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by applicant for quashment of the proceeding of Cr. Case No. 1924/15 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur arising out of Crime No. 399/15 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Chhatarpur for commission of offence under sections 353, 332 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts given rise to this petition are that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate at District Court, Chhatarpur and the Respondent No. 2 working as Head Record Keeper, District Court, Chhatarpur. On 23-8-2015 Respondent No. 2 made a complaint to the Police Station, Kotwali district Chhatarpur stating that on 22-8-2015 near about 1.30 p.m. with the usual process, he went for taking signatures of the In-charge Officer of the Record Room in connection with a demand letter of the High Court for record and reached near the Court room, the petitioner was present having mobile in her hand and took the photograph of the Respondent No. 2. On his objection, she became aggressive and snatched file from the hands of the Respondent No. 2 and torned the papers and also slapped the Respondent with slippers. The Respondent No. 2 snatched the mobile of the petitioner and thereafter returned to her. This incident was occurred out side the Court but in the Court premises the incident was seen by the Record Supplied Udyan Suryawanshi and other employees. On the basis of the written complaint, an FIR was registered and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. 3. The aforesaid proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the Respondent No. 2 has an evil eye on the petitioner. Earlier on account of misbehavior, he was transferred and later on he succeeded to come back and again started harassing with an intention to get sexual favour. On 22-8-2015, the petitioner in the court premises followed her and also made filthy remarks. Therefore, she wanted to record the comments of the Respondent No. 2 then he misbehaved with her and tried to snatched her mobile and she was beaten by the petitioner with slippers and when she cried, other Advocates interfered in the matter and saved her. The Respondent No. 2 threatened her that if she reported the matter, he would finish her and also used abusive language. The Respondent No. 2 threatened her that if she reported the matter, he would finish her and also used abusive language. The petitioner lodged report at the Police Station Kotwali, district Chhatarpur on the same day, on which FIR of the Crime No. 397/15 was registered against the Respondent No. 2 and the charge-sheet has been filed under sections 323, 294, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Respondent No. 2 has lodged the FIR against the petitioner as the petitioner had lodged FIR against the Respondent No. 2. Therefore, it is clear that Respondent has lodged FIR as a counter blast, maliciously just to take revenge with her. 4. It is also stated that on the pressure of the other employees of the Court with their connivance, false case has been prepared. It is also stated that earlier report was made on 22-8-2015 which is Annexure A/2, in which no allegation as mentioned in the written complaint dated 23-8-2015. Therefore, it is clear that the report has been changed. In the circumstances, if the proceedings against the petitioner continued, it would cause great injustice and unnecessary harassment of the petitioner. Hence, the same may be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 , in which it is held :— “The discretion vested in the High Court under 482, Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised suo motu to prevent the abuse of Court, and/or to secure the ends of justice. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused are. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. Where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charges levelled and have placed material before the Court, prima facie, evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution and complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the Court, and secure the ends of justice. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the Court, and secure the ends of justice. The following steps should be followed by the High Court to determine the varacity of a prayer for quashing of proceedings raise by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court vested in the High Court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code : 1. 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? 2. 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 assertion 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. 3. 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? 4. Step four : Whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of the process of the Court and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious Court time, which would other wise 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.” 6. Learned Govt. Advocate has opposed the aforesaid contentions and stated that the proceedings against the petitioner on the report of Respondent No. 2 is just like counter criminal case in which both the parties are alleging against each other and investigating officer has filed charge-sheet against each other. Learned Govt. Advocate has opposed the aforesaid contentions and stated that the proceedings against the petitioner on the report of Respondent No. 2 is just like counter criminal case in which both the parties are alleging against each other and investigating officer has filed charge-sheet against each other. The proceedings of one case cannot be stopped or closed saying that one is counter blast of the case which was registered first. Apart from it, the contention raised by the petitioner is based on the documents which are not of the category of the unimpeachable document and they require to be proved during the trial. Annexure A-2 is a photocopy and there is no disclosure of the source of getting of that copy. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that this is the actual complaint which was first time given by the respondent No. 2 to the Police and later on it was replaced by another complaint. The complaints made by the petitioner after the incident to the authorities, Police, District Judge or the High Court cannot be considered to come to a conclusion that the petitioner’s version is correct. It has no evidential value, except the statement of the petitioner and on the basis of the complaints made to the several authorities which cannot be considered to be the document in the category of unimpeachable documents thereafter their contents cannot be taken to be true or admitted by the other side. The statement given by the petitioner on 10-8-2011, in the enquiry, on the complaint of one Peon Narendra against the Respondent No. 2, only shows that the petitioner’s relations with the Respondent No. 2 was not good, as she stated that the respondent’s behavior with her was not good and he behaved just like an unsound person. This statement dated 10-8-2011 is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that Respondent No. 2 was having an evil eye on the petitioner. As prior to the incident, there is no written complaint by the petitioner against the Respondent, to any authority or District Judge Chhagarpur, therefore, it cannot be inferred that the Respondent No. 2 with a view to get sexual favour used to follow her or involved in the sexual harassment of the petitioner. As prior to the incident, there is no written complaint by the petitioner against the Respondent, to any authority or District Judge Chhagarpur, therefore, it cannot be inferred that the Respondent No. 2 with a view to get sexual favour used to follow her or involved in the sexual harassment of the petitioner. Therefore, it is not a fit case to accept the prayer of the petitioner for closing the proceedings of the criminal case which is just like a cross case with regard to the incident took place on 22-8-2015 in the premises of the District Court, Chhatarpur. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed. 7. Having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record and applying the principle as pointed out in the judgment of Rajiv Thapar (supra), in view of this Court, it cannot be said that the proceedings pending against the petitioner is merely a counter blast of the criminal proceedings started by her against the respondent No. 2 with regard to the incident dated 22-8-2015. There are counter allegations against each other and charge-sheet has been filed against petitioner and respondent No. 2 both. At this stage, prima facie, veracity of the allegations of both the parties cannot be decided. It can be decided only after the trial. Whether the earlier FIR has been changed or not, it cannot be decided at this stage, as the document Annexure A-2 is not an unimpeachable document. It has to be proved by the petitioner. Similarly, further complaints to various authorities by petitioner has no evidential value except the statement of the petitioner and they cannot be treated as unimpeachable document and their contentions cannot be considered to be true. There is no material to show that before the incident any complaint against the respondent No. 2 was made by the petitioner to District Judge, Chhatarpur about misconduct of the Respondent No. 2 with her. 8. Apart from it, the conduct and act of the petitioner also show that she has also grudges against the Respondent No. 2. In the circumstance, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings of the criminal case against the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Courts below for information and its compliance. CC as per rules. Petition dismissed.