Madhya Pradesh High Court
Praveen Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 June, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 21st OF JUNE, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22056 of 2022
Between:-
1. PRAVEEN SINGH S/O SHRI JAGAT PRATAP
SINGH , AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
CULTIVATION R/O VILLAGE AMHA POLICE
STATION KOTWALI DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MONU @ ABHISHEK SINGH S/O LATE SHRI
BALRAM SINGH , AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O VILLAGE KARMAI
P.S MAJHAULI DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAKESH DWIVEDI, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
KOTWALI DISTRICT SIDHI M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RAJBHAN SINGH S/O LATE SHRI RAGHURAJ
SINGH , AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O AMHA
TIRAHA P.S KOTWALI DISTRICT SIDHI M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAMJI PANDEY, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND
OBJECTOR RAJ BAHORAN SINGH PRESENT IN PERSON)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashment of the FIR No. 292/2022 of P.S. Kotwali, District 2 Sidhi for commission of offence under Sections 417, 420, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of IPC registered against the applicants. On the basis of a written complaint made by complainant Rajbhan Singh resident of Amha Tiraha P.S. Kotwali, Sidhi.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that complainant Rajbhan Singh submitted a written complaint to the Addl. S.P. Sidhi mentioning that without determination of the share applicants have fraudulently executed a sale deed on 10.09.2021 in respect of 37.1 x 58x22 land of khasara No. 195/2 comprising area 0.036 hectare in favour of Pushpraj Singh Chouhan, whereas property is registered in the name of deceased Raghuraj Singh and no partition has taken place so far. Praveen Singh along with his father Jagat Singh has filed a Civil Suit RCSA No. 26/21 in Civil Court, Sidhi. The land sold by sale deed dated 10.09.2021 executed by accused/Praveen Singh and Monu @ Abhishek Singh in favour of Pushpraj Singh is of the ownership of the complainant and they are in the possession of the same. The land sold has been described as the exclusive ownership of the vendor, whereas that it is of the joint ownership. In inquiry it has been found that the name of the mother of the applicant No. 2 is mentioned as Kiran in his mark sheet whereas in the sale deed the name of the mother of the applicant No. 2 is mentioned as Late Sunaina Singh.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicants are the grand sons of late Raghuraj Singh who had two wives namely Rajmani Devi and Savitri Devi. Petitioner No. 1 Praveen Singh is the son of Smt Sudha Singh who was the daughter of late Raghuraj Singh and Rajmani Devi. Whereas petitioner No. 2 Monu @ Abhishek Singh is the son of Sunaina Singh who was the daughter of late Raghuraj Singh and Savitri Devi. Petitioners are descendant of late Raghuraj Singh. They had moved an application before the Tahsildar 3 Gopadbanas for mutation and partition in respect of properties belonging to late Raghuraj Singh, situated at ward No. 23, village Amha. Tahsildar after seeking report from Patwari, made spot inspection and submitted report dated 23.09.2022. After following due procedure, Tahsildar allowed the application of petitioners and ordered for mutation of shares of the property of late Raghuraj Singh in the name of his legal heirs. Order dated 27.07.2021 passed by Tahsildar Gopadbanas is Annexure A-2. It is further submitted that mutation order dated 27.07.2021 was challenged by the respondent No.2 before the Sub Divisional Officer. Appeal memo is Annexure A-3. SDO (Revenue Gopadbanas after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of mutation dated 27.07.2021 by its order dated 14.02.2022 which is Annexure A-4. Name of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue record in compliance of the aforesaid order. Khasra entry of year 2022-23 is Annexure A-5. After getting recorded their names in the revenue record, petitioners executed a sale deed in respect of their shares in Khasra No. 195/2 area 0.360 hectare vide Annexure A- 6 sale deed dated 10.09.2021. It is submitted that the allegations made in the first information report, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety no prima facie offence is made out against the present petitioners. Petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated at the instance of the complainant. Petitioners are legal representatives of late Raghuraj Singh. False report has been registered against the petitioners. Registration of FIR is abuse of the process of law. FIR has been registered without any basis. There is no material against the petitioners to show that they have committed any offence. Necessary ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC are missing.Therefore, learned counsel placing reliance on the case of 4 State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992(1) SCC 85 has prayed that FIR dated 02.04.2022 registered at Crime No. 292/2022 of P.S. Kotwali, district Sidhi be quashed in the interest of justice.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer of quashment of FIR. They have submitted that in his lifetime Raghuraj Singh had created a family trust of the property belonging to him and had made Rajbhan Singh the sole trusty of the all his properties. Applicants have no right to alienate a particular part of the property of survey No. 195/2 comprising area 0.0360 hectare, as they are neither in the possession of that particular part of property nor they have had any title or ownership in it. Even if for the sake of argument, it is assumed that applicants are the legal heirs of the deceased Raghuraj Singh in absence of any inheritance rights they get no share or interest in the Raghuraj Singh's property before his death. In his lifetime, Raghuraj Singh had created a family trust about his properties and had appointed his son Rajbhan Singh as the sole trusty of trust. Applicants have no right in the property. Therefore, sale deed dated 10.09.2021/16.09.2021 executed by them in favour of Pushpraj Singh Chouhan has been executed without having any title or interest of the property. They have committed the offence and there is ample evidence against them. Learned counsel further submitted that at initial stage FIR can not be quashed and police can not be prevented from investigating the offence. Placing reliance on the case State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779, it is submitted that power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the first information report is to be exercised in a very sparing manner and is not to be exercised to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate as inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act 5 according to whim or caprice and the statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.
I have heard rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The sole case of the applicants rest on the mutation order passed by the Tahsildar and affirmed by the SDO in the appeal. Applicants are the legal heirs of deceased Raghuraj Singh or not and whether they have any share in the property belonging to Late Raghuraj Singh or not is a question which has to be decided by the Civil Court. Before determining the share of the applicants in the properties left by Late Raghuraj Singh, it has also to be seen whether Raghuraj Singh had died intestate or had bequeathed all his properties in his lifetime or had created any trust or not. Even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that petitioners are joint owner of the property, even then a joint owner of the property has no right to sale a particular part of the joint house, land or any other joint property unless a partition is made in metes and bounds and a particular share of every title holder/ joint owner is fixed in the property in question.
On perusal of recital of the FIR, it is apparent that before registration of FIR, police made an inquiry and after inquiry police have registered an FIR. Investigation is going on. Hence, at this stage, it cannot be said that it is a case of civil dispute only between the parties. At this initial stage, case of the petitioner cannot be considered on merits. Hence, it cannot be concluded that FIR registered in P.S. Kotwali, Sidhi is an abuse of the process of law or and the same is wholly without jurisdiction.
In the case of Kuruksheta University Vs. State of Haryana (1977) 4 6 SCC 451 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed and held that inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to its whims or caprice and the statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.
In the case of Bhajanlal (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court considered in detail, the scope of the High Court power under Section 482 of Cr.p.C. to quash the FIR and identify the following cases in which FIR/complaint can be quashed.
(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 un-controverted 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.7
(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 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."
In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"63. As observed hereinabove, there may be some cases where the initiation of criminal proceedings may be an abuse of process of law. In such cases, and only in exceptional cases and where it is found that non interference would result into miscarriage of justice, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may quash the FIR/complaint/criminal proceedings and even may stay the further investigation. However, the High Court should be slow in interfering the criminal proceedings at the initial stage, i.e., quashing petition filed immediately after lodging the FIR/complaint and no sufficient time is given to the police to investigate into the allegations of the FIR/complaint, which is the statutory right/duty of the police under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no denial of the fact that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but as observed by this Court in catena of decisions, referred to hereinabove, conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious and it 8 casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court. Therefore, in exceptional cases, when the High Court deems it fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, may pass appropriate interim orders, as thought apposite in law, however, the High Court has to give brief reasons which will reflect the application of mind by the court to the relevant facts.
In this case in final conclusion it was made clear in para number 12 to 15, it was directed as under:-
"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;9
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;"
In the light of aforesaid direction by Hon'ble Apex Court. It would not be proper at this stage to go into the merit of the FIR as police has registered FIR and the investigation is going on. Interim protection, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in shape of anticipatory bail has already been granted to applicants. Therefore, this Court do not think it proper prevent to the police from investigating the offence. If after investigation any charge sheet is filed by the police against the applicants. They shall be at liberty to raise their defence before the trial Court at proper stage. However this Court do not think proper to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as investigation is underway.
Consequently, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C. being devoid of merit is dismissed.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE L.R. Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2022.07.05 17:59:15 +05'30'