Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 75 (MP)

BRAJESH SHRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF M. P.

2019-01-22

SHAILENDRA SHUKLA

body2019
ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri Mohan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R. Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant – State. Shri P. R. Raghawan, learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 2. Final submissions were heard on the petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashment of FIR dated 10-9-2015 registered as Crime No. 96/2015 by the GRP, Indore under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per facts of the case, on 10-9-2015, while the complainant Manorama was going from Badnagar to Indore at about 7.15 in the morning, applicant had come from behind and outraged her modesty by holding her hand and pressing her chest. The report was lodged at Indore at 5.17 in the evening, pursuant to filing of the report, investigation was initiated and charge-sheet was filed. Presently, the case is pending for trial and has been registered as Criminal Case No. 43903/2015. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that infact there was civil dispute between the applicant and the complainant. The applicant had purchased an agricultural land from four persons and one of whom is the complainant. A copy of the sale deed is placed on record. Further, a second sale deed was also executed in which the land was purchased by the wife of the applicant from the mother of the complainant. The first sale deed is dated 21-8-2003 and the second sale deed is dated 20-8-2013. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out a document dated 1-9-2015, which is a complaint made by the complainant against the applicant in which it has been complained that in the disputed strip of land which is 3 ft. wide and 100 ft. in length, applicant (Brajesh Shrivastava) has made an encroachment and is digging pits whereas, that land belongs to the complainant and it is further complained that the applicant indulges in threatening and is a quarrelsome person. 5. Pursuant to this complaint filed before Tehsildar Badnagar, a report dated 7-9-2015 was submitted by the Tehsildar, which is placed on record in which it has been concluded that the disputed land infact belongs to the applicant and the land regarding which the complaint has been made is a pathway over which both the parties have right to use. 5. Pursuant to this complaint filed before Tehsildar Badnagar, a report dated 7-9-2015 was submitted by the Tehsildar, which is placed on record in which it has been concluded that the disputed land infact belongs to the applicant and the land regarding which the complaint has been made is a pathway over which both the parties have right to use. It is after this report dated 7-9-2015 that FIR pertaining to section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged on 10-9-2015. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the report is false and aimed at implicating the applicant in false case. He has also pointed out that the report was lodged very belatedly i.e. at 5.17 in the evening and that too at GRP, Indore. He has further pointed out that the husband of the complainant works in the Railway Security Committee which is discernible from the certificate of the Station Superintendent, Badnagar and the complainant has taken undue advantage of the position of her husband, due to which the report has been facilitated. It is also submitted that the applicant is the Principal of a school regarding which a certificate is placed on record. In this certificate, it has been shown that the applicant on 10-9-2015 i.e. on the date of incident was working in the school. This certificate has been issued by the President of Sharda Bal Prathmik Shikshan Samiti, Badnagar. He has also pointed out the fact that the applicant was constrained to lodge a complaint dated 18-9-2015 with the Superintendent of Police, a copy of which is also placed on record in which it has been complained that the complainant is wreaking vengeance on account of her long pending dispute with the applicant. He further submits that in view of these facts, it is quite clear that the complainant has made the lawful right of lodging an FIR as an instrument of wreaking vengeance against the applicant and therefore, FIR be quashed. In support of the fact that such an application for quashing FIR can be filed even at the stage of evidence, a citation of the Apex Court has been submitted for perusal, which is Satish Mehra vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, reported in (2012) 13 SCC 614. 6. In support of the fact that such an application for quashing FIR can be filed even at the stage of evidence, a citation of the Apex Court has been submitted for perusal, which is Satish Mehra vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, reported in (2012) 13 SCC 614. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the complainant who is a lady would not seek recourse to lodging such FIR which would actually impinge upon her dignity. It is further stated that in the statement recorded under section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code, she has reaffirmed on oath the averments of FIR. 7. Learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 2 (complainant) also submits that all these submissions which have been referred to can also be raised before the Trial Court wherein the documents of the applicant will be required to be exhibited and thereafter whole evidence shall be taken. Considered rival contentions. 8. From perusal of the citation, it is quite clear that such an application filed for quashment of FIR can be filed at any stage and even at the stage of defence evidence. 9. The only question before this Court is as to whether there are any bona fides of the application. 10. It is clear from the perusal of the documents that there is a land dispute between both the parties and just a week before the date of incident, complainant had filed a complaint regarding encroachment against the applicant which however, was found to be incorrect and this was followed by a complaint by the complainant and in this backdrop, belated lodging of report regarding section 354 of Indian Penal Code becomes significant and it has also to be considered that the complainant’s husband being in such a position of Railway Security Committee and the complainant filed such report at GRP, Indore. Although, complainant has made her statement under section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code, the whole chain of circumstances point out to be a designed effort on the part of the complainant to implicate the applicant. With the dispute already pending between both the parties, it is not natural for the applicant to commit such an act at 7.15 in the morning in the presence of large crowd. Moreover, there are no witnesses apart from the immediate family members i.e. husband and son of the complainant. 11. With the dispute already pending between both the parties, it is not natural for the applicant to commit such an act at 7.15 in the morning in the presence of large crowd. Moreover, there are no witnesses apart from the immediate family members i.e. husband and son of the complainant. 11. From all these factors, it can be safely concluded that the complainant has infact taken recourse to law purposely wreaking vengeance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Bansidhar Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 194 has laid down that the power of quashing a FIR has to be sparingly exercised by the Courts and referring to the citation in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal and others, reported in 1992 (1) Suppl. SCC 335, the Apex Court has pointed out that one of the categories when FIR may be quashed is when 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. Thus, facts of this case squarely point at the attraction of this category referred to in the above Apex Court judgment hence, this petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is allowed. Consequently, FIR registered vide Crime No. 96/2015 dated 10-9-2015 is hereby quashed and it will have its effect on trial. The applicant stands discharged and his bail bond also stands discharged. 12. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. 13. Certified copy, as per rules.