Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 389 (MP)

Dharmendra Singh v. State of M. P.

2021-03-17

VISHAL MISHRA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Vishal Mishra, J. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of First Information Report registered in respect of Crime No. 51/2021 at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior for the offences under sections 498A, 506, 323, 34 of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and all other consequential proceedings consequent thereto. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 2 has lodged the FIR against the petitioner alleging therein that she got married with the petitioner no. 1 on 13.4.2021 and it is alleged that the present petitioners demanding Rs. 2 Lakhs from the respondent no. 2 and further the respondent no. 2 was harassed for demand of dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have has not involved in the alleged crime and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and they have not committed any offence in any manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others, 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 and Vineet Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, (Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 287 of 2017) and prayed for quashing the entire consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR registered at Crime No. 51/2021 at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior. 3. Per Contra counsel for the State has opposed the petition and has argued that investigation is pending in the case and as per the settled legal preposition pending investigation FIR should not be quashed and he has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. In the present case, First Information Report has been registered and the matter has to be investigated by the police authority and at this stage from bare perusal of the F.I.R., it can never be said that no case is made out against the present petitioners. 6. 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. 6. 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(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 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. (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." 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 Harayana Vs. Bhajanlal (supra) and looking to the fact that the investigation is pending against the petitioners, therefore, this Court doesn't find any reason to quash the F.I.R. registered against the present petitioner. 7. 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. 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.-(1) 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". Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and also in the case of Taramani Parakh (supra) this court does not deem it appropriate to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tilly Gifford v. Michael Floyd Eshwar reported in (2018) 11 SCC 205 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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. Broadly speaking, a criminal investigation, unless tainted by clear malafides, should not be foreclosed by a Court of Law. 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. 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 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held has 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." 8. In view of the foregoing discussions, this court is not inclined to allow the petition. The petitioner can very well avail the benefit of judgment passed in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) and face the trial. 9. Accordingly finding no merits in the petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the same is hereby rejected. E-Copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.