Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 February, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Mcrc.26579/2017
Dinesh Jatav & others Vs. State of M.P.
Gwalior Dt. 28/2/18
Shri G.S.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Kamal Jain, Public Prosecutor for the State.
1.Inherent powers of this court are invoked for quashment of FIR dated 1/6/2017 bearing Crime No. 41/2017, registered by P.S. Sheopur, district Sheopur alleging offences punishable u/Ss. 447, 323, 294, 354, 354-B, 354-A, 342, 506, 147 and 149 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners primarily contends by referring to a letter (A/6) dated 22/1/2017 of the SHO of Police Station Veerpur, district Sheopur that in an inquiry conducted by the said officer in which statements of witnesses of the area where the incident took place were recorded, no material could be collected by the prosecution agency to support the allegations of sexual harassment or assault or use of criminal force against the prosecutrix to disrobe her as alleged. The said letter is addressed to the the Additional S.P.,district Sheopur. It is submitted that despite this exonerative report by the SHO, Sheopur, the charge-sheet has been filed alleging same offences against the petitioners.
3. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioners has alleged mala fide against the prosecution agency.
4. A bare perusal of the impugned FIR reflects presence of the basic ingredients which constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners.
5. The prosecutrix who has lodged the impugned FIR has specifically alleged that the petitioners on the issue of removal of boundary wall abused the prosecutrix and pushed her down on the ground and dragged her to some extent leading to tearing of her clothes. In support of the said FIR, statements of the prosecutrix 2 herself and other witnesses namely Rammu, Shyamlal, Mangala, Chhote, Ramesh, Smt. Kammodevi, Gopal Singh, Ramjee and Ummed have been recorded u/S. 161 Cr.P.C., which more or less are in the same line of the impugned allegations as contained in the FIR.
6. In view of the above, prima facie it appears that basic ingredients of the offences alleged in the impugned FIR are spelled out by the allegations contained therein.
7. As regards mala fide the said letter of the SHO alone does not assist the petitioners as it is obvious that the tentative exonerative findings of the SHO during conduction of inquiry/investigation of the offence could not find favour with the superior police officer.
8. The filing of the charge-sheet renders the opinion of the SHO otios.
9. In view of above and in absence of any failure of justice, no case is made out for exercising inherent jurisdiction by this court.
10. Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed.
Digitally signed by DHANANJAYA BUCHAKE(Sheel Nagu) Judge Date: 2018.02.28 18:31:07 +05'30' (Bu)