Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ajay Katiyar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 19 August, 2019

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak

                  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
 1               M.Cr.C. No.38047/2018
        (Ajay Katiyar Vs. State of M.P. and Another)

Gwalior Bench:
Dated:19/08/2019
     Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Senior counsel assisted with Shri

Mahendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Sushant Tiwari, learned Public Prosecutor for the

respondent No.1-State.

None for respondent No.2.

The present petition is preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the FIR registered vide Crime No.372/2016 at Police Station Kotwali, District- Sheopur for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 354 and 506 of IPC and all consequential proceedings thereto.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that a complaint has been made by respondent No.2 on the basis of allegation that on 04/11/2016, she was called by the petitioner to meet him in respect of some official work and when she visited her house then he called her inside the house and started misbehaving with oblique motive, wherein he tried to hold her hand and when she objected then she was subjected to verbal abuse. On her screaming, Atal Rathore and Ajeet who were playing in the ground in the vicinity came to the place of occurrence. Accused intimidated the complainant with dire consequences.

3. FIR was registered on the complaint and investigation was carried out. Petitioner has taken exception to the registration of FIR.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C. No.38047/2018 (Ajay Katiyar Vs. State of M.P. and Another) According to learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, a false case has been registered against him. Petitioner is working as District Education Officer and respondent No.2 as Sahayak Adhyapak in Government School. Earlier in year 2011, respondent No.2 was transferred from one school to another and the same was challenged by her alongwith two other persons by way of W.P. No.241/2011 in which direction dated 17/01/2019 was made and petition got dismissed. Thereafter, writ appeal was preferred by way of W.A. by complainant vide No.76/2011 but it met the same fate. Thereafter, she preferred an appeal before the Collector, District- Sheopur and vide order dated 15/11/2011, appeal got dismissed. Infact, respondent No.2 wanted to be posted at the school situate at Chambal Colony, Sheopur and did not want to get transferred anywhere else, therefore, she took all efforts to remain at one place.

4. Learned Senior counsel through various documents filed with the petition tried to contend that she made constant efforts for posting her at a particular place. He relied upon the order dated 27/06/2018 passed in W.P. No.11326/2018, wherein the District Education Officer was instrumental in handing over the charge to another lady Smt. Baby Sahnaz, therefore, respondent No.2 always harboured grudges against him. No such incident took place at the instance of petitioner. False complaint has been registered by respondent No.2. Once the complaint has been made and inhouse committee gone through the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 M.Cr.C. No.38047/2018 (Ajay Katiyar Vs. State of M.P. and Another) complaint as well as allegations made by the complainant and vide order dated 30th January, 2018, the committee consisted of Additional Collector, Sheopur as Chairman and SDO, Revenue Vijaypur and Project Officer, Women and Child Devlopment Project as committee members, found the allegations as counter blast then no ground exists to prosecute petition. Learned counsel also mentioned the fact that said order contained reference of the decision taken by the State Women Commission vide order dated 16/08/2017 in which, petitioner was given clean chit. Therefore, according to petitioner, he is the victim of the circumstances, rather than perpetrator of it. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 and her husband have threatened petitioner while visiting his residence and abused him and intimidated him to face dire consequence if the petitioner desisted to issue order for posting as per choice.

5. Petitioner relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vishaka & Ors. Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 3011, Satish Mehra Vs. State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Anr., AIR 2013 SC 506 and State Of Haryana And Ors Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that FIR has been registered at the instance of petitioner on the same day at 5:57 pm. He submits that FIR of complainant is much prior in time of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 M.Cr.C. No.38047/2018 (Ajay Katiyar Vs. State of M.P. and Another) petitioner. Evidence is clear therefore, petition be dismissed and petitioner be directed to face the trial.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. This is the case where petitioner is facing allegations mainly in respect of Section 323, 294, 354 and 506 of IPC. Petitioner has placed various documents including the Courts orders as well as orders passed by the Collector and other public functionaries, which indicate that respondent No.2 is working as Assistant Teacher at Sheopur and she constantly wanted to remain at a particular place and therefore, several litigations have been undertaken by her. Certain orders of Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Sheopur are also annexed some of which are duly approved by the Incharge Officer. Besides that several litigations indicate that she tried to exert pressure over the District Administration and other functionaries to get her work done.

9. Perusal of Annexure P-13 which is issued from the office of Collector, District, Sheopur on dated 10/05/2011 indicates that her conduct has been deprecated by the District Collector. It has been referred in column 4 of the table that she tried to mislead the authority and even concealed the fact before the High Court when petition was preferred. A specific finding of malafide intention was referred by the Collector and it appears from the said document (Annexure P-13) that HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 M.Cr.C. No.38047/2018 (Ajay Katiyar Vs. State of M.P. and Another) respondent No.2 was in habit of misrepresentation of facts and exertion of pressure over the authorities for personal goals.

10. Perusal of the order dated 27/06/2018 passed in W.P. No.11326/2018 also indicates that petitioner was instrumental in taking over the charge from respondent No.2 and handing over it to some other person. All these documents indicate the conduct of respondent No.2. Besides that, the important aspect in the case is the report of committee constituted by the Collector consisting of Additional Collector as chairman and two other members including SDO, Revenue Vijaypur, District-Sheopur, Project Officer Women and Child Development, Sheopur, who gave a detailed report vide Annexure P-23 in which detailed inquiry was conducted and all the necessary parties had given chance to advance their case. The said committee found the allegations made by respondent No.2 as false and were not found proved.

11. The said order also refers the order 16/08/2017 passed by the State Women Commission which given clean chit to the petitioner, although the said orders are not with the petitioner but reference of the said order finds place by the committee members in their report dated 30th January, 2018 therefore, as per the guidelines, in-house inquiry was also conducted in which petitioner stand exonerated. The said inquiry also refers the fact of an enquiry conducted by the State Women Commission therefore, twice inquiries were conducted on HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6 M.Cr.C. No.38047/2018 (Ajay Katiyar Vs. State of M.P. and Another) same set of allegations, therefore, it appears that respondent No.2 tried to create a situation for implication of the applicant/ petitioner on false pretext. Here it appears that false allegations have been levelled by respondent No.2.

12. Petitioner also filed a complaint on which FIR was registered on the same day but at a later point of time and reason for delay is his participation in a meeting in collectorate and therefore, after sometime, he lodged the FIR against respondent No.2 and her husband.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra) has laid the guidelines as under:-

(a) 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;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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;

(c) 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;

(d) 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;

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 7 M.Cr.C. No.38047/2018 (Ajay Katiyar Vs. State of M.P. and Another)

(e) 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;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (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 concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide 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.

14. The clauses b, c and g of the said judgment applies over the case in hand. Even the Apex Court in the case of D.P. Gulati, Manager Accounts, M/s JetkingInfotrain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, AIR 2015 SC 3760 as well as Lovely Salhotra & Another Vs. State NCT of Delhi & Another, AIR 2017 SC 2595 have held that those complaints which are filed as counter blast and which are for pressurizing the accused do not deserve credence and resultantly quashed the FIR.

15. Here it appears that respondent No.2 filed a case on false pretext against the petitioner and therefore, it amounts to abuse of process of law therefore, complaint filed by respondent No.2 deserves to be quashed.

                                                    (Anand Pathak)
vc                                                     Judge



     VARSHA
     CHATURVEDI
     2019.08.28
     15:04:49 -07'00'