Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 156 (MP)

Anil Verma v. State of M. P.

2019-02-20

VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
ORDER 1. The petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR as well as other criminal proceeding related to that FIR lodged in Police Station, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Distt. Bhopal registered on 21.12.2015 at Crime No. 1152/2015 for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC against them. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that a Member of Madhya Pradesh State Assembly raised a question before the Assembly alleging therein the name of Verma Travels. The petitioners are the owner of that Travels have received a permit for carrying the children to the School to and fro by bus. BHEL contacted 20 buses, some of them belong to the petitioners. Tax for that purpose is Rs. 1/- per seat for the school permit, but, when the bus used for carrying passengers, the tax for per seat is Rs. 600/- for the permit. The allegation therein is that there is collusion between the concerning RTO and owners of the travels taking permit for school purposes, but, used the permit to carry the passengers outside the limit of Municipal Corporation, Bhopal. After submitting answer by the concerned department, enquiry has been started and it is found that the bus No. MP04 PA 2511 belongs to petitioner No.1 Anil Verma and another bus No. MP04 PA 2473 belongs to petitioner No. 2 Deepak Verma. Both the buses are contracted with BHEL for carrying the children from School and also found that both the buses are also contracted with the Karmal Convent Senior Secondary School. The petitioners submitted copy of contract before the RTO along with affidavit and the school permit has been issued. Tax levied Rs.1/- per seat by the RTO, but later on it is found that both the buses were not in contract with the school and not carrying the children. Letter has been sent to the Principal, Carmal Convent Senior Secondary School, Bhopal to verify the fact and the Principal categorically submitted that he has not signed any contract and the buses were not engaged in his school. Letter has been sent to the Principal, Carmal Convent Senior Secondary School, Bhopal to verify the fact and the Principal categorically submitted that he has not signed any contract and the buses were not engaged in his school. After enquiry, Tax Officer of the Regional Transport Office, Bhopal submitted a detailed report to S.H.O., Police Station, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bhopal, inter-alia, named petitioner No.1 Anil Verma and petitioner No.2 Deepak Verma stating therein that the petitioners submitted a forged document and succeeded in getting the school permit for that. In that respect, in the written complaint it is alleged that Anil Verma caused a loss of Rs.9,18,000/- to the Government in not paying the tax and Deepak Verma caused loss of Rs.9,18,000/- in not paying the proper tax. On the basis of that report in Police Station, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bhopal, FIR has been lodged at Crime No.1152/2015 registered against the petitioners and the investigation was proceeded. 3. Being aggrieved by that investigation, the petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of CrPC for invoking the inherent power for quashment of FIR and criminal proceeding registered against them on the ground that no ingredients of offence under sections 420, 415, 467, 468 or 471 of IPC have been made out. The petitioners are being harassed by the RTO on the basis of the question raised by the Member of State Assembly. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment passed in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another [ (2014) 8 SCC 273 ], Lalita Kumari v Govt. of U.P. and others [ (2012)4 SCC 1 ], and State of Haryana v. Ch.Bhajanlal and others [ AIR 1992 SC 604 ], and prays to quash the FIR registered at Crime No. 1152/2015 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that there is sufficient material available against the petitioners for investigation. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case diary of Crime No.1152/2015. 7. Officer of the Regional Transport Office, Bhopal, after assessing the loss and after enquiry made by the RTO lodged FIR and also filed some documents against the petitioners. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case diary of Crime No.1152/2015. 7. Officer of the Regional Transport Office, Bhopal, after assessing the loss and after enquiry made by the RTO lodged FIR and also filed some documents against the petitioners. On perusal of the copy of agreement along with complaint, it is apparent that it is undisputed that Bus No. MP04 PA 2511 is in the ownership of petitioner No. 1 and Bus No. MP04 PA 2473 is in the ownership of petitioner No. 2. Both the petitioners submitted copy of the agreement before the RTO for getting permit along with affidavit which goes to show that both the buses were engaged on the basis of agreement executed between M/s. Verma Travels and BHEL, Bhopal for plying the bus within the Municipal limit of Bhopal for transporting the school going children to and fro. Another agreement executed between petitioner No.1-Anil Verma and Carmal Convent Senior Secondary School, Bhopal and in that agreement Bus No. MP04 PA 2511 was engaged for carrying the children. In the same way petitioner No. 2 Deepak Verma filed copy of agreement executed between him and Carmal Convent Senior Secondary School with regard to Bus No. MP04 PA 2473 for carrying children and school staff within the Municipal limit and on the basis of that agreements, petitioners succeeded to obtain school permit and levied only Rs.1/- per seat as tax. However, later on both the agreement executed by the petitioners found forged and not executed by Carmal Convent Senior Secondary School, Bhopal. Officer of the RTO dealing with the tax matter calculated the loss and filed FIR against the petitioners along with other persons. It is undisputed that the petitioners are the owner of the Verma Travels. 8. Considering the documents filed along with the case diary, prima facie the facts emerge out that the petitioners by using the forged agreement executed between the School and them and on the basis of affidavit filed, obtained permit of both the buses for carrying school going children and staff to and fro within the Municipal limit and for that purpose levied the tax Rs.1/- per seat. If it is not used for school purpose, the bus is used for passengers, the tax per seat would be Rs.600/-. 9. The matter is under investigation. If it is not used for school purpose, the bus is used for passengers, the tax per seat would be Rs.600/-. 9. The matter is under investigation. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing of FIR and this Court has stayed the further proceedings and on that account the investigation has been stopped, but later on this Court again instructed to investigate the matter but do not submit the charge sheet, therefore, for that account, the matter is not investigated properly. When there is some cognizable offence found, the Police Officer lodged FIR and investigated the matter, at this primary stage, this Court cannot held that the ingredients of the offences are made out or not. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajanlal and others, has culled out some important points for quashing of the FIR or complaint, as under : “108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercise. 1. 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. 2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable 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. 3. 2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable 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. 3. 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. 4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absured 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. 6. 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 on concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or 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.” 109. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliablity or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.” In the present case, there is prima facie facts enclosed in case diary do not show that the petitioners have been arrayed on the basis of ulterior motive. 11. 11. In the Case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), no doubt, Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that there is growing tendency of false registration of FIR. That case is pertaining to FIR lodge under section 498A of IPC and the wife implicated the relatives of her husband, therefore, the facts of that case is distinguishable to the present case. The case of Lalita Kumari (supra), no doubt, was based on commercial dispute, therefore, Hon’ble apex Court warned the Police that when there is commercial disputes between the parties, the Police should be more cautious in registering the FIR by converting the civil dispute in the criminal cases for harassing the parties of the civil dispute. Thus, the cases laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable in the present scenario of the case. 12. Recently, in the case of State by Inspector of Police Chennai v. SLV and another [ AIR 2018 SC 81 ], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if material brought on record by prosecution are true and most valued such material with a view to find out whether facts disclosed existence of ingredients of an offence disclosing prima facie case against the accused, charge can be framed against the accused. 13. Considering all the evidence collected in the case, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR by invoking the inherent power. 14. Accordingly, this petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.