Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakashchandra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 December, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36609
1 MCRC-9125-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 18th OF DECEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9125 of 2014
PRAKASHCHANDRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sukh Lal Gwaliory - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ajay Raj Gupta - Panel Lawyer for respondents No. 1 and 2/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed for
quashment of FIR vide Crime No.288/2013 registered at Police Station
Rawti for offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 509 of IPC and
Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act and other consequential criminal proceedings (Sessions Trial
No.49/2014) arising out of the said crime.
As per the case of prosecution, complainant Smt Sharda W/o Lunja
aged about 35 years submitted a written complaint before Superintendent of
Police, Ratlam on 23.07.2013 alleging that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe
caste. On the date of accident, she has gone to Government Hospital, Raoti
as an attendant of a pregnant lady. She has to stay in the hospital at night. In
the late night, she was drinking water from the water tank, which is situated
within the campus of hospital. At that time, present petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 20-12-2024
17:01:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36609
2 MCRC-9125-2014
Prakashchandra who is a politician came there and caught hold her hand and
tried to take her in a secluded place. She screamed for rescue, but nobody
came there and petitioner ran away from the spot. Immediately, she has not
narrated the incident anybody, but in the next day morning, she narrated the
incident to his brother and family members. Thereafter, she went to Police
Station Raoti, but the police did not lodge her report. Then, she submitted a
written complaint to Superintendent of Police, Ratlam. After investigation,
the Deputy Superintendent of Police directed the Investigating Officer to
register the FIR. Thereafter, Police Station Rawti registered FIR at Crime
No.288/2013 for offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 509 of IPC
and Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act against present petitioner on 18.12.2013. After completion
of investigation and other formalities, final report has been filed before the
Competent Court of criminal jurisdiction.
Leaned counsel for the petitioners, in addition to the grounds,
mentioned in the petition, submits that the registration of impugned FIR is
illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. There are material contradictions and
omissions in the contents of the complaint as well as in the impugned FIR.
The allegations in the FIR even if taken at their face value, do not reveal
commission of any offence by the petitioner. It is further contended that
complainant had maliciously lodged a false complaint in order to take
revenge and out of personal enmity. The Investigating Officer has accepted
the fact that complainant submitted a false complaint and in enquiry report
(Annexure P-2) as well as enquiry report of Deputy Superintendent of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 20-12-2024
17:01:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36609
3 MCRC-9125-2014
Police, they had clearly accepted the grudge or enmity of complainant and
prosecution witnesses against the applicant. During investigation, they had
also inspected the spot of incident and recorded statements of nearby
neighbours and after completion of investigation, his report proved the
present petitioner innocent. Learned counsel further submitted that final
report has been filed even though it is clear from the investigation reports
and the facts and circumstances of the case that petitioner is innocent and due
to resentment, he was falsely implicated in this matter, but the police did not
want to get into mess, therefore, registered FIR against him. It is further
pleaded that due to previous enmity and animosity with petitioner,
complainant lodged afalse case and without considering the previous
investigation report of concerned Superintendent of Police, police registered
FIR against him. There is inordinate delay of five months in lodging the FIR.
It is further submitted by counsel for petitioner that he has already been
granted anticipatory bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC
No.4097/2014 after considering all facts. There are no independent witnesses
in the incident and only on the basis of general and omnibus allegations,
petitioner has been falsely implicated. In support of contentions,learned
Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Krashan Kumar Agrawal and Others
vs. State of MP and another, ILR (2013) MP523, Vivek Goyal vs. State of
MP 2013 (I) MPWN 99, Varinder Singh vs.State of Punjab and Another
(2014) 3 SCC 151, Asmathunnisa vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 92011) 11
SCC 259 and Ramesh Rajagopal vs. Devi Polymers Private Limited, 2016
(II) MPWN 11. On these grounds, it prayed that the petition deserves to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 20-12-2024
17:01:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36609
4 MCRC-9125-2014
allowed and the impugned FIR as well as charge-sheet be quashed.
Learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of petitioner for
quashment of FIR as well as charge sheet and submitted that from perusal of
FIR as well as charge sheet, cognizable offenc is clearly made out against
the petitioner. It is a matter of evidence. After collecting evidence by the
police, charge sheet has been filed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this
petition.
Heard.
In the case of Kamaladevi Agrawal Vs. State of W.B. (2002) 1 SCC 555,
Hon’ble Apex Court considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
with regard to quashment of FIR, complaint and criminal proceedings, reads as
under :-
“This Court has consistently held that the revisional or inherent powers
of quashing the proceedings at the initial stage should be exercised
sparingly and only where the allegations made in the complaint or the
FIR, even if taken it at the face value and accepted in entirety, do not
prima facie disclose the commission of an offence. Disputed and
controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the
jurisdiction.”
In the case of R. Kalyani Vs. Janak C. Mehta, (2009) SCC 516, Hon’ble Apex
Court further observed that :-
Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are :
(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent
jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a First
Information Report unless the allegations contained therein, even ifSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 20-12-2024
17:01:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36609
5 MCRC-9125-2014
given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no
cognizable offence.
(2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very
exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied
upon by the defence.
(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations
made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not
go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold
absence of any mens rea or actus reus.
(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not
be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be
allowed to continue.
The aforesaid legal position has been reiterated in the case of Mahesh
Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2009) 4 SCC 439. Relevant
paragraphs of the judgment are condign to quote here :-
“13. The principle providing for exercise of the power by a High Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a
criminal proceeding is well known. The court shall ordinarily exercise
the said jurisdiction, inter alia, in the event the allegations contained in
the FIR or the Complaint Petition even if on face value are taken to be
correct in their entirety, does not disclose commission of an offence.
14. It is also well settled that save and except very exceptional
circumstances, the court would not look to any document relied upon
by the accused in support of his defence. Although allegations
contained in the complaint petition may disclose a civil dispute, the
same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminalSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 20-12-2024
17:01:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36609
6 MCRC-9125-2014
proceedings should not be allowed to continue. For the purpose of
exercising its jurisdiction, the superior courts are also required to
consider as to whether the allegations made in the FIR or Complaint
Petition fulfill the ingredients of the offences alleged against the
accused.”
Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Deepak [(2019)
13 SCC 62], reversing the order of discharging of the High Court, has enunciated
the principles which the High Courts must keep in mind while exercising their
jurisdiction under the provision. In this case, endorsing another case of Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander [(2012) 9 SCC 460
has quoted as under:-
“27. .. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this
Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered
for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to
quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397
or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be:
27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted
allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the
allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no
prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic
ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may
interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous
examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the
case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge
or quashing of charge.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 20-12-2024
17:01:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36609
7 MCRC-9125-2014
27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to
prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave
error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such
cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to
throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe
is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to
determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the
case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with
the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence
and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous
prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court
should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather
than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to
marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability
of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.”
Again, on this aspect, the verdict of Hon’ble the Apex Court in a recent judgment
of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Niraj Tyagi and Ors. reported in 2024 LawSuit
(SC) 112 decided on 13.02.2024, is significant. Paras 22, 23 & 24 are worth to be
referred to the context of this case :-
“22. Recently, a Three-Judge Bench in Neeharika
Infrastructure (supra) while strongly deprecating the practice of the
High Courts in staying the investigations or directing not to take
coercive action against the accused pending petitions under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., has issued the guidelines, which may be reproducedSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 20-12-2024
17:01:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:366098 MCRC-9125-2014
hereinbelow for ready reference:-
“Conclusions
33. 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 482CrPC 4 2017 (2) SCC 779 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 CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not
quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of
powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:
33.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant
provisions of the Codeb of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter
XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence.
33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable
offences.
33.3. 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.
33.4. 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).
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 20-12-2024
17:01:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36609
9 MCRC-9125-2014
33.5. 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.
33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.
33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than
an ordinary rule.
33.8. 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.
33.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary,
not overlapping.
33.10. 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.
33.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer
an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or
caprice.
33.12. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 20-12-2024
17:01:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36609
10 MCRC-9125-2014
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.
33.13. The power under Section 482CrPC 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.
33.14. 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 R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v.
State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal
[State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] ,
has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint. 33.15. 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.
33.16. 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 CrPC 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 20-12-2024
17:01:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36609
11 MCRC-9125-2014
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 CrPC 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 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 33.17.
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 CrPC 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.
33.18. 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.”
Looking to the allegations made against the petitioner contained in
FIR as well charge sheet and considering law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, it is evident that the Court should not interfere at the initial stage as it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 20-12-2024
17:01:27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36609
12 MCRC-9125-2014
is a matter of evidence and the criminal proceedings should not be scuttled in
mid-way and the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to reliability or
genuineness of the allegations made by the complainant in impugned FIR or
complaint. The police has statutory right and duty under relevant provisions
of CrPC to first investigate into cognizable offence as to whether any offence
is made out against accused like petitioners or not.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case as well
as allegations levelled against petitioner and considering the law laid down
by Hon’ble Apex Court as stated above, at this stage, this Court doesn’t find
any justifiable reason to quash the impugned F.I.R/charge sheet. warranting
interference under Section 482 CrPC, as it has to be exercised for the ends of
the justice and should not be arbitrarily exercised to cut short the normal
process of a criminal trial and if any abuse of the process leading to injustice
is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in
preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific
provisions in the Statute.
Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC sans merit
and is hereby dismissed.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
MKB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 20-12-2024
17:01:27