Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 308 (MP)

Jay Kumar Nalvaya v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2020-02-26

ATUL SREEDHARAN, SANJAY YADAV

body2020
JUDGMENT Atul Sreedharan, J. - The present petition has been filed by the applicant who is a Sub-inspector in the Madhya Pradesh Police praying for the quash of the FIR dated 20.11.2019 registered as Crime No.278/2019 for offences punishable under sections 7-A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended Act, 2018). 2. It is undisputed that the investigation is still in progress and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed. This is the second petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The first M.Cr.C. bearing No.53214/2019 was withdrawn by the applicant vide order dated 07.01.2020 on the ground that during the pendency of the petition, the police had added the offence under section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to the law as advised. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed. 3. The facts of the case against the applicant as revealed from the FIR registered against him which is Crime No.278/2019, is that on 20.11.2019, the complainant of the case Mr.Brijmoham Keer gave a written complaint dated 18.11.2019, that he owns a tractor manufactured by Sonalika Company bearing No.MP-05-AH-9496 and a trolley. Three months before giving the complaint, the complainant from his own field had filled up sand in his tractor trolley and was headed towards Itarsi. The S.H.O. of Police Station-Rampur Gurra, the applicant herein, apprehended the tractor trolley of the complainant and seized the same and parked it at P.S. Rampur Gurra. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application before the Court at Itarsi for the release of the said vehicle on which the learned Court below passed an order directing the Police to release the said tractor on Supurdginama. The complainant has alleged that the order of the Court, notwithstanding, the applicants herein demanded Rs.30,000/- for the release of the said tractor and trolley. He further states that the petitioner never contacted the complainant directly but would make a demand through a Dhaba owner by the name of Rajeev from Itarsi. The complainant further states that besides his own tractor the applicant had also seized the tractors of some relatives of his village, and parked them at P.S. Rampur Gurra. He further states that the petitioner never contacted the complainant directly but would make a demand through a Dhaba owner by the name of Rajeev from Itarsi. The complainant further states that besides his own tractor the applicant had also seized the tractors of some relatives of his village, and parked them at P.S. Rampur Gurra. According to the complainant, the other persons whose tractors were also seized by the applicant had received similar demands from the accused no.2, Rajeev to release the said vehicle. He further states that he does not want to give the bribe amount of Rs.30,000/- and that he would like to get the applicant apprehended red handed. Thereafter, the respondent has arranged the conversation between the complainant and the accused no.2, Rajeev and recorded the same in a digital voice recorder. The FIR also records the fact that in the said conversation the accused no.2 Rajeev, has asked for a bribe of Rs.30,000/- on behalf of the applicant herein to release the tractor trolley of the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR is an instance of malicious prosecution against him, which is act of wrecking vengeance by the complainant, as the applicant was responsible for apprehending the tractor and trolley of the complainant for stealing sand without paying royalty to the State and has registered Crime No.98/2019 dated 21.09.2019 against the complainant for the said act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the complainant never approached the petitioner ever with the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Court below in order to release his tractor and trolley. According to the applicant, the complainant is a sand Mafia, who by his illegal acts causes loss to the State. 5. The short question before us is whether, where admittedly the FIR has only been registered and investigation is in progress and the charge-sheet is yet to be filed, whether this Court can stymie an investigation only because malafide is alleged against the complainant by the applicant. The investigation still in progress. In the course of the investigation, the Investigating Agency obviously would procure the call detail records of the second accused Rajeev and also that of the applicant to see whether there has been any kind of conversation between the applicant and the accused Rajeev. The investigation still in progress. In the course of the investigation, the Investigating Agency obviously would procure the call detail records of the second accused Rajeev and also that of the applicant to see whether there has been any kind of conversation between the applicant and the accused Rajeev. If, there has been, then the investigating Agency would also like to know as to how the applicant knows the accused no.2 Rajeev and his relationship with him. 6. It may also be probable that the applicant being a police officer, who is very well conversant with the process of investigation, may also know how to cover up his traces. The call detail records of the applicant may not reveal that he has made any calls to the accused no.2 from his mobile. In such a situation, the Investigating Agency may be of the opinion that the applicant being a police officer possibly, may not make calls from his own mobile but may use the mobile of a third person in the course of his dealing with the accused no.2. In this direction, the Investigating Agency would have to scrutinize closely the call detail records of accused no.2-Rajeev, to see who are the persons or numbers to whom he has spoken to, which coincide with the time and date, during which the accused no.2 Rajeev has contacted the complainant of the case. 7. Thereafter, the Investigative Agency may want to enquire from each such persons contacted by the accused no.2, Rajeev with regard to the purpose of the conversation. However, last but not the least, the Investigating Agency may even consider making the accused no.2 as an approver in order to unearth the truth against the applicant. 8. As these are all the options that are open to the respondents to adopt during the course of the investigation, it cannot be said that the FIR deserves to be quashed at this stage. The applicant has no reason to suspect any prejudice being caused to him as, if the investigation by the respondent reveals that the case against the applicant is false, the respondent may even file a closure report before the learned Special Court. An FIR is always registered on the basis of an information that discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. It is only the investigation thereafter, that can disclose whether an offence was indeed committed. An FIR is always registered on the basis of an information that discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. It is only the investigation thereafter, that can disclose whether an offence was indeed committed. The allegations against the applicant are unequivocal, however, whether the same are true or false can only be unearth by the process of investigation. Therefore, at this juncture, there exists no material to reveal that the FIR against the applicant is malicious only because the complainant has been proceeded against by the applicant. There is no credible material produced by the applicant that the FIR has been registered against him only as an act of vendetta. 9. Under the circumstances, we are not impressed by the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant, that this investigation deserves to be quashed only because no preliminary inquiry was done or that there are no evidence against the applicant which warranted the registration of an FIR. There is no necessity for evidence to be forthcoming with regard to an offence at the stage of registering an FIR, all that is required is an allegations disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence. The gathering of evidence is always in the course of investigation and not before it. 10. Under the circumstances, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed .