Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sayra Bano @ Sabra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 December, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:23022 1
M.Cr.C. No.54489 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 18th OF DECEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54489 of 2024
SMT. SAYRA BANO @ SABRA AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri J.S.Kaurav, Advocate for applicants.
Shri Mohit Shivhare, Government Advocate for respondents/State
ORDER
1. This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of
B.N.S.S., has been filed seeking the following relief:
“It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and in
exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction vested under
section 482 Cr.P.C. the FIR registered at Crime
No.0119/2024 on 16.3.2024 by Police Station Kotwali
Sheopur, District Sheopur for the offences punishable
under sections 323, 294, 506, 147 and 148 of IPC and the
proceedings consequent thereto may kindly be directed to
be quashed in the interest of justice.”
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that the FIR in
question i.e. Crime No.119/2024 has been registered at Police
Station Kotwali Sheopur for offences under sections 323, 294, 506,
147 and 148 of IPC wherein complainant has claimed that he has
two plots i.e. Survey No.201 and 202 at Sheopur. It is alleged that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/20/2024
7:45:28 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:23022 2
M.Cr.C. No.54489 of 2024
by the side of these plots one 20 x 20 Pator (hutment) of Nanne
Khan is in existence. On 1/2/2020, at about 9 AM, Sayra Bano,
Sabir, Gohar Naaz, Anbar Khan, Nadiya, Tanvir Khan, Sabnam, her
husband who is a constable in Jail at Sheopur, Javed who is a
correspondent and two sisters of Sabir came on the spot where son
of complainant Firoz was getting the work done by JCB of Bittu
Chauhan as thirteenth day ceremony of mother of his neighbor
Mahavir Gurjar was fixed. At that time, all the accused persons
compelled the driver of JCB to take away the JCB, as a result he
parked the JCB on the road. At that time, Insaf and other persons
were called and son of complainant namely Firoz was attacked and
they also started abusing him filthily in the name of mother and
sister. Owner of JCB Bittu Chauhan and other bypassers also heard
the abuses which they did not like. However, accused persons did
not stop and after destroying the boundary wall, entered into the
plot and tried to take possession of the same and also extended
threat that in case the complainant party would come back to the
plot then they would be killed. By-passers intervened in the matter.
Complainant tried to get the FIR registered after showing
documents of plot, but later they came to know that TI under
political and media pressure has registered FIR against complainant
and his son and a false allegation was also made that the
complainant has fired a gunshot from his licensed gun, whereas he
was not present on the spot. It is further stated that his licensed 315
bore rifle was kept in an Almirah. About 2 months back, the rifle
had fallen down, as a result it went out of order and it is not in a
position to fire. There is no facility of getting the rifle repaired at
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/20/2024
7:45:28 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:23022 3
M.Cr.C. No.54489 of 2024
Sheopur, therefore, he thought that he would get it repaired either at
Morena or at Indore. It was further alleged that by hatching
conspiracy they have falsely lodged an FIR against the complainant
party and have falsely alleged use of gun. Lease deed which was
shown by the accused party are of Survey Nos. 313 and 316 in
which name of Sabir and his mother have not been mentioned and
those plots are situated at a distance from the plots in question.
Thus, it was alleged that on the basis of forged lease deeds, accused
party is trying to take possession of complainant’s plot.
3. Challenging the aforesaid FIR, it is submitted by counsel for
applicant that applicant Sayra Bano had lodged an FIR against
respondent no.4 which was registered as Crime No.34/2020 at
Police Station Kotwali, Sheopur for offences under sections 323,
504, 436, 506 and 34 of IPC. However, it was fairly conceded that
in the FIR lodged by applicant the incident was alleged to have
taken place on 1/2/2020 at about 10.30 AM, whereas in the FIR
which was lodged by respondent/complainant the incident is alleged
to have taken place on 1/2/2020 at 9 AM.
4. Thus it appears that some incident has taken place and
complainant has lodged the impugned FIR, whereas applicant who
are accused in the impugned FIR have also lodged an FIR in Crime
No.34/2020. Once both the parties are alleging that incident had
taken place in the morning of 1/2/2020 then whether applicants
were aggressors or whether respondent/complainant was aggressor
is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/20/2024
7:45:28 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:23022 4
M.Cr.C. No.54489 of 2024
Court in exercise of powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C./S.528 of
BNSS.
5. Even otherwise in the light of judgments passed by the
Supreme Court in the cases of XYZ v. State of Gujarat reported in
(2019) 10 SCC 337, State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Martin & Ors.
reported in (2018) 5 SCC 718, Ajay Kumar Das v. State of
Jharkhand, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 319, Mohd. Akram
Siddiqui v. State of Bihar reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350, State of
A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226, M.
Srikanth v. State of Telangana, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373,
CBI v. Arvind Khanna reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686, State of
MP Vs. Kunwar Singh by order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Cr.A.
No.709/2021, Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in
(2018) 5 SCC 678, Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in
(2014) 15 SCC 221, State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan,
reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547, S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal
reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600, Sangeeta Agrawal v. State of U.P.,
reported in (2019) 2 SCC 336, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander
reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Vs.
Kovuri Satyanarayana Reddy reported in (2012) 12 SCC 437 and
M.N. Ojha v. Alok Kumar Srivastav reported in (2009) 9 SCC
682, this Court can quash the proceedings only if the uncontroverted
allegations do not make out an offence. This Court cannot dwell
upon the defence of applicants. Even otherwise, where complaint
discloses the commission of cognizable offence, malafides of the
complainant becomes secondary.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/20/2024
7:45:28 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:23022 5
M.Cr.C. No.54489 of 2024
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Renu Kumari Vs. Sanjay
Kumar and others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 346 has held as
under:-
9. “8. Exercise of power under Section 482
CrPC in a case of this nature is the exception
and not the rule. The section does not confer
any new powers on the High Court. It only
saves the inherent power which the Court
possessed before the enactment of CrPC. It
envisages three circumstances under which the
inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely,
(i) to give effect to an order under CrPC, (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii)
to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is
neither possible nor desirable to lay down any
inflexible rule which would govern the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative
enactment dealing with procedure can provide
for all cases that may possibly arise. The
courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart
from express provisions of law which are
necessary for proper discharge of functions and
duties imposed upon them by law. That is the
doctrine which finds expression in the section
which merely recognises and preserves
inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts,
whether civil or criminal possess, in the
absence of any express provision, as inherent
in their constitution, all such powers as are
necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong
in the course of administration of justice on the
principle of quando lex aliquid alicui concedit,
concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse
non potest (when the law gives a person
anything, it gives him that without which it
cannot exist). While exercising the powers
under the section, the court does not function
as a court of appeal or revision. InherentSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/20/2024
7:45:28 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:23022 6M.Cr.C. No.54489 of 2024
jurisdiction under the section, though wide, has
to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with
caution and only when such exercise is
justified by the tests specifically laid down in
the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice for
the administration of which alone the courts
exist. Authority of the court exists for
advancement of justice and if any attempt is
made to abuse that authority so as to produce
injustice, the court has the power to prevent
abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the
court to allow any action which would result in
injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In
exercise of the powers the court would be
justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that
initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of
the process of court or quashing of these
proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of
justice. When no offence is disclosed by the
report, the court may examine the question of
fact. When a report is sought to be quashed, it
is permissible to look into the materials to
assess what the report has alleged and whether
any offence is made out even if the allegations
are accepted in toto.
9. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR
1960 SC 866 : (1960) 3 SCR 388] this Court
summarised some categories of cases where
inherent power can and should be exercised to
quash the proceedings:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a
legal bar against the institution or continuance
e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first
information report or complaint taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not
constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence,
but there is no legal evidence adduced or theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/20/2024
7:45:28 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:23022 7M.Cr.C. No.54489 of 2024
evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to
prove the charge. (AIR p. 869)
10. In dealing with the last category, it is
important to bear in mind the distinction
between a case where there is no legal
evidence or where there is evidence which is
clearly inconsistent with the accusations made,
and a case where there is legal evidence which,
on appreciation, may or may not support the
accusations. When exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court would
not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether
the evidence in question is reliable or not or
whether on a reasonable appreciation of it
accusation would not be sustained. That is the
function of the trial Judge. Judicial process
should not be an instrument of oppression, or,
needless harassment. The court should be
circumspect and judicious in exercising
discretion and should take all relevant facts and
circumstances into consideration before issuing
process, lest it would be an instrument in the
hands of a private complainant to unleash
vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At
the same time the section is not an instrument
handed over to an accused to short-circuit a
prosecution and bring about its sudden death.
The scope of exercise of power under Section
482 CrPC and the categories of cases where the
High Court may exercise its power under it
relating to cognizable offences to prevent
abuse of process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice were set out in some
detail by this Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC
335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR 1992 SC 604]
. A note of caution was, however, added that
the power should be exercised sparingly and
that too in the rarest of rare cases. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/20/2024
7:45:28 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:23022 8
M.Cr.C. No.54489 of 2024
illustrative categories indicated by this Court
are as follows : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)
‘(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.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code
or the Act concerned (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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/20/2024
7:45:28 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:23022 9
M.Cr.C. No.54489 of 2024
Act concerned, 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.’
11. As noted above, the powers
possessed by the High Court under Section 482
CrPC are very wide and the very plenitude of
the power requires great caution in its exercise.
The court must be careful to see that its
decision, in exercise of this power, is based on
sound principles. The inherent power should
not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. The High Court being the highest
court of a State should normally refrain from
giving a prima facie decision in a case where
the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more
so when the evidence has not been collected
and produced before the Court and the issues
involved, whether factual or legal, are of
magnitude and cannot be seen in their true
perspective without sufficient material. Of
course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down
in regard to cases in which the High Court will
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of
quashing the proceeding at any stage.
[See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4
SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC
892] and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of
Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 1].] It
would not be proper for the High Court to
analyse the case of the complainant in the light
of all probabilities in order to determine
whether a conviction would be sustainable and
on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the
proceedings are to be quashed. It would be
erroneous to assess the material before it and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/20/2024
7:45:28 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:23022 10
M.Cr.C. No.54489 of 2024
conclude that the complaint cannot be
proceeded with. When an information is lodged
at the police station and an offence is
registered, then the mala fides of the informant
would be of secondary importance. It is the
material collected during the investigation and
evidence led in the court which decides the fate
of the accused person. The allegations of mala
fides against the informant are of no
consequence and cannot by themselves be the
basis for quashing the proceedings.
[See Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna
Kumar [1990 Supp SCC 686 : 1991 SCC (Cri)
142] , State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma [1992
Supp (1) SCC 222 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 192]
, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh
Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri)
1059] , State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan [(1999)
2 SCC 651 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 304] , State of
U.P. v. O.P. Sharma [(1996) 7 SCC 705 : 1996
SCC (Cri) 497] , Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh
Kumar Bhada [(1997) 2 SCC 397 : 1997 SCC
(Cri) 415], Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) [(1999) 8 SCC 728 : 1999 SCC
(Cri) 1503] and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of
Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri)
401] .]”
The above position was again reiterated
in State of Karnataka v. M.
Devendrappa [(2002) 3 SCC 89 : 2002 SCC
(Cri) 539] , State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore
Gupta [(2004) 1 SCC 691 : 2004 SCC (Cri)
353] and State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar
Sahoo [(2005) 13 SCC 540 : (2006) 2 SCC
(Cri) 272] , SCC pp. 547-50, paras 8-11.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/20/2024
7:45:28 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:23022 11
M.Cr.C. No.54489 of 2024
7. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that impugned FIR
was lodged after 4 years.
8. Considered the submissions made by counsel for applicants.
9. It appears that when the police did not listen to respondent
no.4, then he filed a petition before the High Court which was
registered as M.Cr.C. No.40034/2022 and only in compliance of
order passed by High Court, the impugned FIR was lodged. Thus, it
is clear that it is not as simple as to hold that FIR was lodged after 4
years. Furthermore, delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to
quash the proceedings.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Skoda Auto Volkswagen
(India) Private Limited. Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in
(2021) 5 SCC 795 has held that in a petition for quashing the FIR,
the Court cannot go into disputed question of fact. The mere delay
on the part of complainant in lodging the complaint, cannot by itself
be a ground to quash the FIR. The Court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in FIR or in complaint and criminal proceedings
ought not to be scuttled at initial stage.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar and
another Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 690 has
held that attack on prosecution cases on the ground of delay in
lodging FIR has almost bogged down as a stereotyped redundancy
in criminal cases. It is a recurring feature in most of the criminal
cases that there would be some delay in furnishing the first
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/20/2024
7:45:28 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:23022 12
M.Cr.C. No.54489 of 2024
information to the police. It has to be remembered that law has not
fixed any time for lodging the FIR. Hence a delayed FIR is not
illegal. Of course, a prompt and immediate lodging of FIR is ideal
as that would give the prosecution a twin advantage i.e. firstly it
affords commencement of the investigation without any time lapse
and secondly that it expels the opportunity for any possible
concoction of a false version. Even otherwise promptly lodged FIR
is also not an unreserved guarantee for the genuineness of the
version incorporated therein. There may be variety of genuine
causes for FIR lodgement to get delayed.
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid and
another Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in AIR 2023 SC
3784 has held that delay in registration of FIR, by itself cannot be a
ground for quashing of FIR. Thus, it is clear that merely because
according to applicants there is delay in lodging the FIR by itself is
not sufficient to quash the same.
13. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out
warranting interference.
14. Application fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
(G.S.Ahluwalia)
Judge
(and)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/20/2024
7:45:28 PM