Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tilak Singh vs Vasudev Jatav on 6 November, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19283
1 MCRC-6812-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 6 th OF NOVEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6812 of 2024
TILAK SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
VASUDEV JATAV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. D.P.Singh - Advocate for the respondent [R-1].
Mrs. Ankita Mathur - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
Present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 17.01.2024 passed by Special Judge, Bhind, District Bhind in Private complaint Case No. UNCR/14/2022 (Vasudev Jatav Vs. Tilak Singh Others) and MJCR/174/2022 (State of M.P. Vs. Tilak Singh and Ors.), whereby learned Court below took the cognizence under Section 323 and 34 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(V-a) of SC/ST Act and reject the police ER (Kharji Report/Expunged report) No. 04/2024 dated 25.11.2021 in Crime No. 104 of 2021 registered by Police Station Mau District Bhind in MJCR/174/2022.
Brief facts to decide the present petition are that respondent No. 1/complainant filed a written complaint to the police station alleging that on 14.04.2021 at about 11:00 AM in Panchayat Bhawan, Village Sehrouli, a Gram Sabha meeting was going on and during course of proceeding of that meeting, a dispute arose between the complainant and present petitioners. Thereafter, petitioners assaulted the respondent No. 1 and also hurled caste based abuses. It Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 08-11-2024 10:24:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19283 2 MCRC-6812-2024 has also been alleged that respondent No. 1 received injuries in his chest, waist and upper arms. The MLC was got conducted, in which, simple injuries were found on the body of the complainant. The respondent No. 1 was referred for chest x-ray and as per x-ray report, a fracture was found in his chest area (Rib). On the basis of which, a FIR was got registered bearing Crime No. 104 of 2021 under Sections 323, 294, 325 and 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act against the petitioners. However, upon investigation, SHO, Mau, District Bhind found that the complaint is false. Thereafter, on the application of petitioner, Collector Bhind passed the order on 30.04.2021 and directed to medical board for re-examination of injury of complainant, however, as per report of Medical Board no fracture was found on the body of the respondent No. 1.
Thereafter, Station House Officer, Mau, District Bhind wrote a letter to SP (Ajak) Chambal Zone, Gwalior for sanction of ER (Kharji report/Expunged report) and the same was accepted. Thereafter, complainant/respondent was filed one private complaint before Special Judge, Bhind on 11.01.2022, where learned Court called the investigation report and ER was submitted to the Court having Crime No. 104 of 2021, however, learned Court below both the case integrated/merged as per Section 210 of Cr.P.C and after recording the statement of complainant and other witnesses under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance by the order impugned. Against which, present petition has been filed.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the learned Court below did not touch the single facts of the ER report and without considering any cogent reason rejected the ER report, which itself is violation of principal of natural justice therefore, impugned order Annexure A/1 dated 17.01.2024 as well as subsequent criminal proceedings is liable to be set aside. It is further argued that learned trial Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 08-11-2024 10:24:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19283 3 MCRC-6812-2024 Court has also ignored the fact that a false x-ray report has been prepared by the complainant wherein, no single injury has been caused to complainant. In such circumstances, impugned order deserves to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had supported the impugned order passed by learned trial Court and had prayed for dismissal of the petition on the ground that it has no sum and substance.
Counsel for the respondent No.1 cited the case law in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh etc. passed in Criminal appeal No. 1025- 1026 of 2023, wherein, Apex Court has held that if there is sufficient evidence, then FIR cannot be quashed. He further relied in the case of Narendra Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P., passed in M.Cr.C. No.22637 of 2023 , wherein, Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has held that petitioner is still absconding in the matter, therefore, FIR cannot be quashed. In such circumstances, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record. The perusal of the record and the documents filed by the petitioners indicate that on the date of incident i..e. 14.04.2021, the respondent No. 1/complainant filed a written complaint against the petitioners in which he has mentioned that the incident occurred in course of Gram Sabha meeting held at Panchayat Bhavan, Village Sehrouli and at that time Dashrath Gurjar, Raju Gurjar and Chotelal were present. On the other hand, petitioners have also filed an application to concern police station about false implication against the respondent No.1. The documents filed by the petitioners in respect to meeting of Gram Sabha indicate that Dashrath Singh was present in Gram Sabha meeting and his attendance is also there in Attendance register at Sr. No. 10. Dashrath Singh in his police statement corroborated the version of the complainant/respondent No.1 and specifically Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 08-11-2024 10:24:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19283 4 MCRC-6812-2024 mentioned that during course of meeting, petitioner and his brother and his nephew were hurled caste related abuses aiming respondent No. 1/Vashudev and when he asked them to stop, they inflicted injuries on the body of respondent No. 1 by kicks and fists. The MLC report also indicates that the respondent No.1 received simple injuries, though medical board has not found any grievous injuries on the body of the respondent No. 1.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the dispute arose between complainant and petitioners in the meeting of the Gram Sabha. As per report of SHO, some witnesses have not supported the case of the complainant, however, Dashrath Singh has supported the version of prosecution and MLC is also corroborative in respect to simple injuries on the body of respondent No.1, therefore, apparently, disputed question of facts is involved in this case which cannot be decided while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The above disputed facts can only be decided after hearing the case on merits and recording the evidence.
The Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Das vs. State of Jharkhand; (2011) 12 SCC 319 held that power of quashing of criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases for the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the first information report or in the complaint and that the extraordinary or the inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to whim or caprice."
It is well settled that the High Court when approached for quashing of a criminal proceeding should not appreciate the defence of the accused.
The Apex Court in the case of Padal Venkata RamaReddy Vs. Kovuri Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 08-11-2024 10:24:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19283 5 MCRC-6812-2024 Satyanarayana Reddy; (2012) 12 SCC 437 held that in a proceeding under Section 482, the High Court will not enter into any finding of facts. These powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution.
Further, the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Kunwar Singh by order dated 30.6.2021 passed in Cr.A. No. 709/2021 held that a detailed and meticulous appreciation of evidence at the stage of 482 of Cr.P.C. is not permissible and should not be done. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case held as under:-
"8.... At this stage, the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial court would do in the course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced. In doing so, the High Court has exceeded the well-settled limits on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. A detailed enquiry into the merits of the allegations was not warranted. The FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia."
In the case of Rishipal Singh Vs State of U.P. And Another A.I.R. 2014 S.C.2567, the Apex court has laid down that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before quashing of complaint at the initial stage, the tests to be applied by the Court is as to whether the un-controverted allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the offence.
In the light of above settled principles of law, since specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners in respect to offence under Sections 323 and 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act and eye-witness has supported the case of the prosecution, the defence of the petitioners - accused cannot be Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 08-11-2024 10:24:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:19283 6 MCRC-6812-2024 considered at this stage. The detailed enquiry into the merits of the allegations are not warranted. The evidence on record prima facie constitutes the offence under Sections 323 and 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act. Thus, this Court does not find it fit to quash the impugned order dated 17.01.2024 passed by Special Judge, Bhind in Private Complaint Case No. UNCR/14/2022 and MJCR No. 174 of 2022 as well as other consequential proceedings.
Accordingly, present petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE (LJ*) Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 08-11-2024 10:24:07 AM