Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 436 (MP)

Pramod Sadani v. State of M. P.

2024-05-21

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2024
ORDER 1. None for the respondent No.2, despite service of notice. 2. Heard finally. 3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR dated 21.2.2024, lodged at Police Station Sarangpur, District Rajgarh at Crime No.98/2024 under sections 294, 452, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amended 2015), and the consequent criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid crime number. 4. In brief, the facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was lodged on 21.2.2024, in respect of an incident which took place on 20.2.2024 between 12:00 to 13:00 hours in the noon, by the complainant Bulbul Katiya, D/o. Mukesh Katiya, alleging that she is a Class-12th student, and her father is having a property dispute with the accused persons since 2013, and on 20.2.2024, at around 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. in the noon, when she was studying and was alone at home, the accused Pradeep Sadani and Pramod Sadani came to her house and forced open the gate after kicking it, and also started abusing her and when she informed them that her father and mother have gone out, she was also abused and aspersions were made on her caste also. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on a bare perusal of the FIR, it is apparent that a false case has been imposed on the petitioner, which is also apparent from the fact that the complainant?s father Mukesh had filed a Civil Suit No.10-A/2014 against the petitioner for declaration, permanent injunction and partition, which was dismissed by the Trial Court on 28.9.2016 and in the meantime, a civil suit No.RCSA 9/2014 was also filed by the petitioners for declaration, permanent injunction and possession against Mukesh, the father of the complainant, which was allowed by the Trial Court on 28.9.2016 and the father of the complainant was directed to handover the possession of the suit property. The aforesaid decree was challenged by Mukesh by filing an appeal before the District Appellate Court, RCA-48/2016 whereas, against the judgement and decree passed in the case of the complainant?s father, RCA 46/2016 was filed. The aforesaid decree was challenged by Mukesh by filing an appeal before the District Appellate Court, RCA-48/2016 whereas, against the judgement and decree passed in the case of the complainant?s father, RCA 46/2016 was filed. However, both these appeals were also dismissed by the Appellate Court on 19.4.2022, against which, S.A. Nos.1103/2022 and 1104/2022 respectively were filed before the High Court on 2.5.2022 and on 31.3.2023, both the second appeals were dismissed affirming the order passed by the Civil Court. A special leave petition was also filed by the father of the complainant before the Supreme Court and the same has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28.11.2023 and 1.12.2023. Thereafter, on 29.1.2024 an execution proceedings was filed by the petitioner which was registered as EXA/6/2022 and the possession warrants were issued by the Execution Court on the said date and in compliance of the aforesaid warrants, on 20.2.2024, when the Naib Nazir of the Sarangpur Court went to the house of the complainant?s father, which is the same as has been mentioned in the FIR and from there he also called the petitioners to take possession, however, the efforts of the Naib Nazir and the petitioners were thwarted by the father of the complainant, who started creating ruckus with the petitioners and the Naib Nazir and thereafter, the FIR has been lodged on 21.2.2024 of the same time when the petitioner had gone to the house of the complainant in the presence of Naib Nazir. 6. Counsel for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court to the panchnama prepared by the Naib Nazir, on which, the time and date are mentioned as 1:30 p.m. dated 20.2.2024. Thus, it is submitted that only with a view of wreak vengeance against the petitioners and harass them on account of their success in the Civil Courts, the present criminal case has been lodged by Mukesh through his daughter. 7. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the panchnama as aforesaid, in which it is clearly mentioned that on the spot, Mukesh was also available. Thus, it is submitted that the FIR lodged against the petitioner is lodged with mala-fide intention only to wreck vengeance against the petitioners, deserves to be quashed, as the continuation of the same shall be pure misuse of the process of the Court. 8. Thus, it is submitted that the FIR lodged against the petitioner is lodged with mala-fide intention only to wreck vengeance against the petitioners, deserves to be quashed, as the continuation of the same shall be pure misuse of the process of the Court. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and Others reported as (2008) 14 SCC 1 , para 38. 9. Counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that appropriate order may be passed. 10. Neither reply has been filed, nor anybody has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2, despite service of notice. 11. Having considered the rival submissions, on perusal of the FIR filed on record as also the case-diary, this Court finds that so far as sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) are concerned, the same read as under:- “3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.- [(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- (a) xxxxxxx (r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;” And so far as section 3(2)(va) is concerned, the same reads as under:- “(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- (i) xxxxxxx [(va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;]” 12. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions clearly reveals that an offence under Clause (r) and (s) of Sub-section 1 of section 3 would only be made out when the same is committed within the public view, and on a bare perusal of the FIR, it reveals that the accused persons allegedly barged into the house of the complainant where the incident is said to have taken place, when she was all alone in the house. In such circumstances, the ingredients of aforesaid provisions viz., „public view? In such circumstances, the ingredients of aforesaid provisions viz., „public view? are clearly missing in the aforesaid complaint and thus, sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) are not attracted. Whereas, so far as section 3(2)(va) is concerned, it is found that none of the scheduled offences as prescribed in the aforesaid clause, has been committed and thus, the petitioners cannot be tried under the aforesaid section also. 13. On the other hand, this Court also finds force in the submissions as advanced by the counsel for the petitioners, and since there is no rebuttal of the document filed by the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the aforesaid document can be taken into consideration while deciding the present petition as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Rukmini Narvekar (Supra), even otherwise also the document is a public document, prepared by the Naib Nazir of the Court, hence can be taken into consideration by this Court. Thus, considering the fact that at the time when the incident is alleged to have taken place, as stated by the complainant, that her father was not at home whereas, in the panchnama prepared by the Naib Nazir dated 20.2.2024 it is clearly mentioned that Mukesh, the judgement debtor is also present on the spot and has created a lot of trouble, because of which, the possession cannot be given to the decree holder, this Court is of the considered opinion that only a false case has been slapped against the petitioners with a view to wreck vengeance against them and the continuation of which, would only be misuse of the process of the Court. 14. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and the FIR dated 21.2.2024, lodged at Police Station Sarangpur, District Rajgarh at Crime No.98/2024 under sections 294, 452, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(VA) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amended 2015) and the consequent criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid crime number are hereby quashed. 15. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.