Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 668 (MP)

Samar Singh Parmar v. State of M. P.

2019-09-17

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2019
ORDER 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under section 482 of CrPC for quashment of order dated 7.2.2017 passed in Criminal Case No. 959/2016 by the ACJM, District-Indore and order dated 28.6.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 179/2017 by the ASJ/Special Judge, Electricity Act, Indore whereby charges has been framed for the offence punishable under section 324 (two counts) of IPC and section 30 of the Arms Act against the petitioner at Crime No. 868/2015 at police Station-Bhanwarkuan, Indore. 2. According to the prosecution case, petitioner got married on 12.12.2002 with Smt. Manju Parmar and out of the wedlock, on 15.7.2006, one male child namely Divyaraj Singh Parmar was born. In the month of August, 2014, wife of the petitioner Smt. Manju Parmar suffered in clinical depression and she has been treated by her father's friend and Physiatrist Doctor Tandan at Bhopal. Due to adamant nature his wife frequently visiting Bhopal. On 23.10.2015, wife of the petitioner made a false complaint at Mahila Thana, Indore. On 28.10.2015, the petitioner alongwith his 85 years old father, sister, his son and driver were going for check-up by car, near Tower Square at traffic signal, his wife - Manju alongwith her parents and 4-5 anti social element started braking the glass of the Car. They were using abusive filthy language and urging car passengers to come out. In the meanwhile, on hooligan sprayed chilly spray on petitioner's face and police officers and other persons started beating the petitioner and his family by means of stick, rod and pistol butt. Due to this circumstances to save himself and his family, petitioner pulled out licensed 0.25 revolver, which is in the name of his father and fired two three shots in air in self defence. Due to this fire, attackers ran away from the spot alongwith petitioner's 10 years old son Divyaraj Singh Parmar. Thereafter, police registered FIR at crime No. 868/2015 against the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that ever changing statement are sufficient to show that allegations levelled against the petitioner is false and fabricated, therefore, he prayed for quashing of charges framed against the petitioner by allowing this petition. 4. Thereafter, police registered FIR at crime No. 868/2015 against the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that ever changing statement are sufficient to show that allegations levelled against the petitioner is false and fabricated, therefore, he prayed for quashing of charges framed against the petitioner by allowing this petition. 4. State has opposed the petition submitting that the petitioner is not the license holder of the said revolver and in that spur of moment any untoward incident can be taken place, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From perusal of the record, it emerges that the revolver used in crime is in the name of father of the petitioner and petitioner is not having the license of that revolver, that too the petitioner has used the revolver in public place. In such circumstances, it is very clear that no person can be permitted to bring the law in his own hands. Moreover, material witnesses of the incident have to be examined, which is the subject matter of crime, therefore, at this stage charges framed cannot be quashed, as there are specific allegations against the petitioner in the FIR, therefore, this Court of the opinion that charges framed against the petitioner warranting no interference. However, learned trial Court after recording of the evidence of witnesses, may come to a definite conclusion, to meet the ends of justice. 7. The power under section 482 of CrPC is extra ordinary in nature and it is settled proposition of law that this power has to be exercised sparingily and only in the case where attaining facts and circumstances satisfy that possibilities of miscarriage of justice will arise in case of non-use of power. 7. The power under section 482 of CrPC is extra ordinary in nature and it is settled proposition of law that this power has to be exercised sparingily and only in the case where attaining facts and circumstances satisfy that possibilities of miscarriage of justice will arise in case of non-use of power. The Court can interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts in such exceptional cases where it appears that the orders if not corrected would be great injustice to someone, where in passing the order, the Court is capricious and arbitrary or where order passed by learned Courts below have been based on no evidence or material at all available on record or order has been passed on such evidence or material which is wholly irrelevant or arbitrary or where the orders suffers from fundamental legal defects or where the evidence produced in support of the claim, if taken at their face value makes out absolutely no case or where the orders 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 opponent. At this stage sifting or weighing of the evidence neither permitted nor expected. 8. In Krishnanan v. Krishnaveni (1997 AIR SCW 950 : AIR 1997 SC 987 ) it is held that when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power. It may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. 9. Even otherwise evaluation of evidence can not be done at this stage. Certain allegations have been made in the present case, their truthfulness has to be evaluated. They cannot be thrown away at threshold. It may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. 9. Even otherwise evaluation of evidence can not be done at this stage. Certain allegations have been made in the present case, their truthfulness has to be evaluated. They cannot be thrown away at threshold. What would be the effect of contradictions or discrepancies is a matter of fact and has to be seen by the trial Court. 10. Looking to the evidence available on record, quashing of charges against the petitioner is not at all proper at this stage. This Court cannot usurp jurisdiction of the trial Court. The present petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and is liable to be and is dismissed hereby.