Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 327 (MP)

Anil Kumar v. State of M. P.

2021-03-09

VISHAL MISHRA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Vishal Mishra, J. 1. With the consent of parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered under Sections 420 and 467 of IPC registered at Crime No. 153 of 2019 at PS Sirol district Gwalior. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner has already entered into compromise with the respondent no.2 and respondent no. 2 has filed an affidavit to the aforesaid effect which is filed along with application for compromise being I.A. No. 5586 of 2021. He submits that as the matter has already been compromised and complainant is not ready to proceed with the FIR/complaint therefore, he prays that the matter be sent for verification of compromise and the FIR be quashed. 4. Counsel appearing for the respondent/State submits that the investigation is pending in the matter. There are allegations against the present petitioner for selling government land to the respondent no.2. The allegations are serious in nature and require to be investigated completely. It is argued that as per settled legal proposition, pending investigation, normally FIR cannot be quashed. The case does not fall within any parameters/guidelines which have been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. In such circumstances, there are no merits in the petition. Therefore, it deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From perusal of record, it is seen that a complaint was filed by respondent no. 2 with respect to selling of a piece of land situated in Ward No. 60 Alphanagr, Hurawali district Gwalior for consideration of Rs. 5,01,840/- and thereafter when the authorities of the municipal corporation has initiated the demolition drive over the encroachment and the boundary wall of the petitioner was demolished, she came to know that the fraud has been committed with her by the petitioner. In such circumstances, she has filed a complaint to the police authorities on 7.9.2019 on the basis of which, FIR was got registered at Crime No. 153 of 2019 for offence punishable under Section 420 and 467 of IPC. Investigation is pending in the matter, therefore, compromise will not suffice to absolve the petitioner from his conduct of selling government land to the respondent no. Investigation is pending in the matter, therefore, compromise will not suffice to absolve the petitioner from his conduct of selling government land to the respondent no. 2 by manipulating the documents. Aforesaid are the serious allegations against the petitioner which require investigation. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 in paragraph 102 and 103 has held as under:- "102. 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 sufficient channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 entirely 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 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. (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 allegation made in the FIR or complaint 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 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 concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide 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. 103. 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 case; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability 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." 8. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear the case of the petitioner does not fall in the category "seventh" in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal (supra) and looking to the fact that the investigation is pending under section 420 of I.P.C. against the petitioner, therefore, this Court doesn't find any reason to quash the F.I.R. registered against the present petitioner. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P. and Ors. Bhajanlal (supra) and looking to the fact that the investigation is pending under section 420 of I.P.C. against the petitioner, therefore, this Court doesn't find any reason to quash the F.I.R. registered against the present petitioner. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P. and Ors. reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260 has held that powers under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. are extraordinary powers given to the High Court and should be exercised very sparingly and with great care and caution that too in rarest of rare cases. Even otherwise the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted some protection to the accused in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and has held as under: "41. When police may arrest without warrant.-(i) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person (a) x x x x x x (ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary- (a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or (b) for proper investigation of the offence; or (c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or (d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or (e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured, and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing: Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of this subsection, record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest". 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tilly Gifford v. Michael Floyd Eshwar reported in (2018) 11 SCC 205 has held that the power under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. would not permit the High Court to go into disputed questions of fact or to appreciate the defence of the accused. The power to interdict a criminal proceeding at the stage of investigation is even more rare. The power to interdict a criminal proceeding at the stage of investigation is even more rare. Broadly speaking, a criminal investigation, unless tainted by clear malafides, should not be foreclosed by a Court of Law. 11. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and Ors. reported in 2017 (2) SCC 779 has held as under:- "In the instant case, the High Court has not referred to allegations made in the FIR or what has come out in the investigation. It has noted and correctly that the investigation is in progress and it is not appropriate to stay the investigation of the case. It has disposed of the application under Section 482 CrPC and while doing that it has directed that the investigating agency shall not arrest the accused persons. This direction "amounts" to an order under Section 438 CrPC, albeit without satisfaction of the conditions of the said provision. This is legally unacceptable. " 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chaudhary Bhajanlal (Supra) has framed guidelines with respect of entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR and the case of petitioner does not fall within any of the guidelines as the act of petitioner is required to be investigated by the authorities. In such circumstances, there is no merits in the petition as investigation is still pending. 13. Even other wise, the police authorities are duty bound to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet before the concerning Magistrate within a time bound frame as has been mentioned under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, investigation is still pending before the concerning Magistrate for the offence registered in the year 2019. In such circumstances, this court deems it appropriate to direct the police authorities to complete the investigation and produce the charge sheet in the concerning court. 14. As there are no merits in the petition, the same is dismissed. 15. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Police Gwalior for information and necessary compliance in the matter.