Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramashankar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2019
1
CRR-2191-2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRR-2191-2017
Ramshankar and others
versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Abdhesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(13.03.2019) The applicant has filed this petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2017 passed in Criminal S.T.No.82/2017 by the Sessions Judge, Panna, whereby charge framed against all applicants for the offence punishable under Section 294, 333/34, 332/34, 427/34 and 506(2) of the I.P.C.
2. Facts giving rise to this revision, in short, are that all applicants on 20.03.2017 were sitting on the tractor to which attached trolley was filled with sand. The injured are the public servants working in the police department got information that sand was being illegally transported. He reached on the spot and stop the tractor and asked for papers but instead giving papers, all applicants assaulted on the victim with stick and started beating him. The independent person reached on the spot and all applicants fled away with tractor and trolley from the spot. Victim constable Jitendra 2 CRR-2191-2017 lodged a report in the Police Station, Dharampur and Crime No.42/2017 registered against the applicants. Both the injured victims, Rajesh and Jitendra sent for medical examination. Rajesh sustained grievous injury, there was dislocation in the bone. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of both the victims as well as statement of the independent Vijay Sharan Dwivedi and Siddha Gopal Kori and other witnesses. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the JMFC and after committal of case handed over to the Sessions Court for trial and registered as S.T.No.82/2007. Learned trial Court after providing opportunity of hearing to the applicants framed charge against applicants for the offence punishable under Section 294, 333/34, 332/34, 427/34 and 506(2) of the I.P.C. vide order dated 31.07.2017.
3. Being aggrieved by that order, applicant filed this revision for quashing of the charge framed against him on the ground that the applicant was having a valid license, permit for transporting the sand. Victim were demanding money, when the applicant denied to provide illegal money, they got annoyed and started beating and during the scuffle between them, complainant received injury. Applicants have falsely been implicated in the case. There is no material on record to made out the ingredients of the charge and prays for quashment of the charge and criminal proceedings arises thereupon.
4. Learned Government Advocate submitted that the victim being a police officer was asking the papers of the vehicle and license for transporting the sand and applicants obstructed in the work of the public servant and beated him and fled away with tractor and trolley, prays for 3 CRR-2191-2017 dismissal of the petition.
5. Having heard counsel of both the parties and perused the record. Applicants submitted copy of statement of the witnesses recorded during trial in the trial Court.
On perusal of the case diary and document filed along with the petition, this fact emerges out that both the victim being police officer reached to the spot after getting information of illegal transporting of the sand and this fact also emerges out from the oral evidence of the witnesses that all applicants were riding on the tractor and attached trolley was filled with sand.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant was having a permit for transporting the sand. There was a scuffle and in the scuffle victims sustained injuries. This fact prima facie shows that the applicants obstructed the police man for checking of the papers of the tractor as well as sand. MLC report goes to show that the applicant sustained injury and victim Rajesh Dahayak, Constable sustained grievous injury. There is prima facie ingredients of the offence is found in the material collected during investigation and attached with the charge sheet. When there is a sufficient material on which prima facie ingredients of any offence is found, the Court may frame a charge against the person.
7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramech Chander and another, (2012) 9 SCC 460 in para-27 has laid down the principle to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction particularly with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction and scope of this Court under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.or Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or 4 CRR-2191-2017 together, as the case may be, which reads as under :
27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. 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:
27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
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.
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. 27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused. 27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender. 27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted to be
5 CRR-2191-2017 used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose. 27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a "civil wrong"
with no "element of criminality" and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence.
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. 27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction. 27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained.
27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution.
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.
27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge.
27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist. 27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into 6 CRR-2191-2017 consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence.
8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Tiwari vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2014) AIR SCW 4665 clearly held that if there is ground for framing charge against the accused that he has committed an offence, the Court is competent to frame charge for that offence.
9. In the present case, there is sufficient materials available on record, on which court can proceed against the applicants and frame a charge against the applicants, which charge is made out, which is not made out this is a total interlocutory matter that cannot be assailed in the criminal revision. If there is prima facie material that goes to show that ingredients of the offence is made out, the Court can frame charge against the applicant. On the basis of foregoing discussion and following the above mentioned case law, this Court is of the view that there is sufficient material against the applicants for framing the charge. Court has not committed any error.
10. This petition is devoid of merits, hence it is hereby dismissed.
(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge vinay Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 2019.03.14 11:19:07 +05'30'