Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 393 (MP)

Rambabu Yadav v. State of M. P.

2021-03-18

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

body2021
ORDER : Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. 1. This third petition has been filed under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing/challenging the validity of the supplementary charge sheet bearing Challan No. 03/2020 filed in relation to the FIR bearing Crime No. 623/2018, registered on 11th November, 2018 at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior (MP) under Sections 294, 506, 342 of Indian Penal Code, along with the proceedings initiated at RCT No. 301/2019 in respect of the present applicant pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that on respondent No. 2/complainant Smt. Archana Tiwari lodged a report in Police Station Padav, District Gwalior to the effect that she has her own flat situated in Manav Plaza, Opposite Sai Baba Temple, Gwalior, wherein one Ayush Jain is residing as her tenant. On 9.11.2018 at about 10 pm her tenant informed her on phone that Chowkidar is not opening the door. Complainant Archana Tiwari and her husband Rajendra Tiwari reached the spot and upon inquiry it was told to them that the door will be opened only with the permission of applicant Rambabu Yadav. At the same time applicant came on spot and started hurling filthy language. On this report, the concerning Police Station recorded FIR at Crime No. 623/2018 dated 11.11.2018 at 2.08 pm under Sections 294, 506 of IPC against the present applicant along with Chaukidar Rajesh. After filing charge sheet the applicant was exonerated. Upon his exoneration the petitioner withdrew petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC on 10.7.2019 passed in Misc. Cri. Case No. 49200/2018. Thereafter, the applicant having anticipation that he might have been roped in some fallacious, malicious and counterblast prosecution initiated at the instance of the respondent No. 2, he preferred second Misc. Cri. Petition under Section 482 of CrPC, challenging the impugned FIR as well as the notice dated 3.6.2020 issued by Thana Prabhari, Police Station Purani Chhawani, District Gwalior, which was registered as Misc. Cri. Case No. 27705/2020. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2/complainant colluded with the police personnel and got filed supplementary charge sheet in connection with Crime No. 623/2018, wherein it has been alleged that the applicant has committed offence under Sections 294, 506, 342 of IPC. In the meantime, the applicant withdrew the second petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC on 10.2.2021 passed in Misc. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2/complainant colluded with the police personnel and got filed supplementary charge sheet in connection with Crime No. 623/2018, wherein it has been alleged that the applicant has committed offence under Sections 294, 506, 342 of IPC. In the meantime, the applicant withdrew the second petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC on 10.2.2021 passed in Misc. Cri. Case No. 27705/2020 and sought liberty to file afresh in the event any cause of action arises. Therefore, the applicant has filed present petition for quashing the supplementary charge sheet bearing Challan No. 03/2020 in connection with Crime No. 623/2018. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the entire prosecution story is fabricated, doubtful and clearly shows that the allegations put forth have no basis and foundation, which are entirely contradictory and against actual scenario, fact situation and circumstances in the instant case. There is no prima facie case made out under Sections 294, 506, 342 of IPC, as there is no evidence. The FIR has been lodged against the present applicant as a counterblast. Hence, prays for quashing of FIR and other consequential proceedings. 4. Per Contra, learned State counsel opposed the petition and submitted that as the case is registered under Sections 294, 506, 342 of IPC and FIR has been lodged in Crime No. 623/2018 and there is specific allegation against the present applicant, hence prays for rejection of petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC. 5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record. 6. In State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others, [ (1977) 2 SCC 699 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:- "In the, exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment or persecution. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the, ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its. subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction." 7. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Although in the above case Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the power of the High Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR, the case arose out of an FIR registered under Section 161, 165 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Hon'ble Apex Court elaborately considered the scope of Section 482 CR.P.C./Article 226 in the context of quashing the proceedings in criminal investigation. After noticing various earlier pronouncements, Hon'ble Apex Court enumerated certain Categories of cases by way of illustration where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or secure ends of justice. Paragraph 102 which enumerates 7 categories of cases where power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are extracted as follows: "102. Paragraph 102 which enumerates 7 categories of cases where power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are extracted as follows: "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 sufficiently 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 entirety 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 allegations 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 allegations 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 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." 8. Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineet Kumar and others vs. State of UP, (2017) 13 SCC 369 ], has observed as under:- "39. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the Categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are material to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following effect: (7) Where 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." 9. In the light of above, the facts of the present case are required to be considered. 10. In the light of above, the facts of the present case are required to be considered. 10. Present case is registered for the offences punishable under Sections, 294, 506, 342 of IPC, which reflects that the case was registered as a counter-blast to earlier backdrop, thereby it can safely be inferred that the registration of FIR in the present case is abuse of process of court and under these circumstances, quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings would serve the end of justice. It is also essential for the court to consider that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or, needless harassment. The court must be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration whether allegations are well founded or not. 11. In the light of above discussion, the FIR registered against the present applicant in Crime No. 623/2018 at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 342 of IPC and all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR, deserve to be quashed and the same are hereby quashed. 12. The petition stands allowed in aforesaid terms.