Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 276 (MP)

Sanjeev Rai v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2024-03-13

VISHAL MISHRA

body2024
ORDER : On earlier occasion this Court vide order dated 09.01.2024 granted time to the applicants to place on record the order of framing charges. In compliance of the said order learned counsel for the applicants has filed I.A. No.3642 of 2024, an application for taking documents on record. Along with the application the order of framing charges has been filed as Annexure IA/1. For the reasons mentioned therein, the application is allowed. The same is taken on record. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of an FIR dated 22.03.2016 registered at Crime No.117 of 2016 at Police Station Gairatganj, District Raisen for offences punishable under Sections 294, 509, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and subsequently the charge framed against the applicants under Sections 323, 294, 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(w)(2), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have also been challenged. 2. The case of the applicants is that the respondent No.2/complainant lodged an FIR dated 22.03.2016 alleging therein that on 12.03.2016 the applicants have used filthy language, abused and manhandled the complainant in Tahsil Office premises and threatened her of dire consequence. The dispute arose because of a land deal Area measuring 2.9 Acres and the consideration for which the buyer has to pay to the complainant. The applicant No.1 being a lawyer, who got the sale-deed executed thus, he has to get the balance amount paid. It is further alleged that the applicants abused the complainant by her caste and on the next day i.e. on 13.03.2016 the applicants entered the house of the complainant, assaulted her husband with hands and fists. 3. It is argued that the entire case is an afterthought and as a counterblast to the complaint lodged by the applicants on 12.03.2016 bearing Crime No.87 of 2016 at Police Station Gairatganj, District Raisen. It is pointed out that the complainant herself has lodged an NCR under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. on the same day being NCR No.81 of 2016. After going through the NCR, it is clear that the FIR dated 22.03.2016 is an afterthought and no such incident has taken place on 12.03.2016. It is pointed out that the complainant herself has lodged an NCR under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. on the same day being NCR No.81 of 2016. After going through the NCR, it is clear that the FIR dated 22.03.2016 is an afterthought and no such incident has taken place on 12.03.2016. Complainant being the Panch of the Gram Panchayat Saidpur, Tahsil Gairatganj and since the decision is being taken in Gram Sabha on 15.04.2015 to remove the husband of the complainant from the employment of Panchayat at the instance of Smt. Sumitra Rai, the complaint was made. The applicant No.1 is neither a party to the sale-deed nor he has any stake in the said transaction. On the contrary, he has merely got the sale-deed executed being a part of his profession as an advocate. The consideration of the sale-deed has already been paid in furtherance to the sale-deed dated 23.01.2013 executed by husband of complainant namely Roop Singh in favour of the purchaser Jagmohan Pal. Furthermore, they have accorded their consent for mutation of the name of purchaser Jagmohan Pal in the revenue records after one month from the date of the execution of the sale-deed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court vide order dated 06.06.2016 has stayed the further investigation in Crime No.117 of 2016. On 24.11.2017 it was informed by the learned counsel for the applicants that the charge-sheet has been filed in the aforesaid crime and the learned trial Court has fixed the case of recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses on 21.02.2017. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has further stayed the proceedings of Special Case No.48 of 2016 pending before the Special Judge, Raisen. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that despite stay being granted by this Court the learned trial Court has proceeded with the matter and framed charges against the applicants. 5. Placing reliance upon the judgments in the case of Karan Singh and others vs. State of M.P. reported in 1992 Cri.L.J. and in the case of Pappu Singh and others vs. State of U.P. reported in 2002 Cri.L.J. 1251 it is argued that it is a monitory dispute between the parties, therefore, no offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out, looking the complaint/FIR which has been registered against the applicant. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khuman Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2020) 18 SCC 763 , Krishna Lal Chawla & ors. vs. State of U.P. & anr., 2021 LiveLaw SC 145 and Tarak Dash Mukharjee & ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., (Criminal Appeal No.1400 of 2022, decided on 23.08.2022). In view of the aforesaid, he has prayed for quashment of the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceedings and the charges framed against the applicants. 6. Per contra, counsels appearing for the complainant as well as respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the contentions drawing attention of this Court to the FIR dated 22.03.2016 in which the name of the applicants are mentioned. It is alleged that the complainant went to applicant No.1 asking for balance amount of consideration towards the sale-deed on which she was paid Rs.2,000/- to her. She has returned back the amount of Rs.2,000/- stating therein that she will not accept such a small amount. Thereafter, applicant No.1 got angry and has abused her by using her caste name. He has also not giving the balance amount of consideration for saledeed despite assurance being given by him to pay the balance consideration amount. When she again asked to pay the amount, the applicant No.1 got angry, abused her, pushed her and has also twisted her hand. He further threatened her that in case any complaint is made then he will kill her. At that time, the father of applicant No.1 came there, he has also abused her by using filthy language and has also abused her by her caste. Further threatened her to take back her report or else they will kill her and her husband. On the basis of the same, a written complaint has been made to the police authorities. It is not a case where the report has been made after a considerable delay rather the incident took place on 12.03.2016 and the report was made on 22.03.2016. The same cannot be said to be an inordinate delay in reporting the matter to the police authorities. It is not a case where the report has been made after a considerable delay rather the incident took place on 12.03.2016 and the report was made on 22.03.2016. The same cannot be said to be an inordinate delay in reporting the matter to the police authorities. Rather, the applicant No.1 being an Advocate and being afraid of the threatening being given by the applicants to the complainant and her husband, they could not gather courage to lodge an FIR with respect to the incident that took place on 12.03.2016. The complainant was medically examined. The MLC shows that she has reported regarding inflicting injury on the cheek by means of hand, however, the MLC reflects that there is no grievous injury. Her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded before the trial Court wherein she has totally supported the prosecution story. In view of the aforesaid, they have prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 8. The law with respect to quashment of an F.I.R. is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a landmark judgment in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Suppl. SCC 335 has laid down certain guidelines which were subsequently reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment passed in the case of Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine 315, especially in paragraph 80 certain guidelines have been framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which reads as under:- "80. SCC 335 has laid down certain guidelines which were subsequently reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment passed in the case of Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine 315, especially in paragraph 80 certain guidelines have been framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which reads as under:- "80. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted "during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or ''no coercive steps to be adopted'' during the investigation or till the final report/charge sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:- (i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; (ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; (iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; (iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). (v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; (vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; (vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; (viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; (ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; (x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; (xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; (xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; (xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; (xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; (xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; (xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or ''no coercive steps to be adopted and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or ''no coercive steps either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/charge sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. (xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of no coercive steps to be adopted within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted as the term" no coercive steps to be adopted can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied." 9. The law with respect to framing of charges is also settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of cases that only a prima-facie case is required to be seen by the learned trial Court at the time of framing charges. No detailed appreciation of evidence is required in the matter. Moreover, at this stage, the Court need not to undertake an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the Court is required to consider is whether the evidentiary material available on record, if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. The judgments which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants are virtually on different footings. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel vs. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547 in paragraph 23 held as under:- "23. At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the principles which have been laid down by this Court, what the court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office. The court must indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The court must indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting is not to be meticulous in the sense that the court dons the mantle of the trial Judge hearing arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced after a full-fledged trial and the question is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the accused. All that is required is, the court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material. The material must be such as can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. The strong suspicion cannot be the pure subjective satisfaction based on the moral notions of the Judge that here is a case where it is possible that the accused has committed the offence. Strong suspicion must be the suspicion which is premised on some material which commends itself to the court as sufficient to entertain the prima facie view that the accused has committed the offence." 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhawna Bai vs. Ghanshyam reported in (2020) 2 SCC 217 has observed as under:- "13. ...At the time of framing the charges, only prima facie case is to be seen; whether case is beyond reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at this stage. At the stage of framing the charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. While evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against the accused is to be seen.” 12. In a decision rendered in the case of Manendra Prasad Tiwari vs. Amit Kumar Tiwari, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1057, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the well-settled law on charge as follows:- “21. The law is well settled that although it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC or a revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence. The law is well settled that although it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC or a revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of a charge can be done only at the stage of trial. To put it more succinctly, at the stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused person. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC or a revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC seeking for the quashing of charge framed against him, the Court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases. 22. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of CrPC has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. 22. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of CrPC has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure. 23. Section 397 CrPC vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding.” 13. The learned trial Court after going through the charge-sheet which has been filed by the police authorities have arrived at a conclusion that there is sufficient material against the applicants, therefore, the charges were framed. At this stage, it cannot be said that there is no element or ingredients of Sections 323, 294, 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (w)(2), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in the present case. The same will be looked into by the learned trial Court after the statements of the witnesses are being recorded. 14. Thus, in view of the aforementioned judicial precedents, this Court is of the opinion that at the stage of framing the charges, the Court's primary concern lies in determining a prima-facie case against the applicants/accused. The same will be looked into by the learned trial Court after the statements of the witnesses are being recorded. 14. Thus, in view of the aforementioned judicial precedents, this Court is of the opinion that at the stage of framing the charges, the Court's primary concern lies in determining a prima-facie case against the applicants/accused. In the present case, prima-facie case is made out against the applicants/accused, therefore, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the settled law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no case for interference is made out. 15. The petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.