Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 June, 2022

Author: Anil Verma

Bench: Anil Verma

                             -1-
                                           M. Cr. C. No.59616 of 2021




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT INDORE
                          BEFORE
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

                  ON THE 21st OF JUNE, 2022
           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 59616 of 2021

  Between:-
  RAVI S/O LATE SHRI RAMESH MANGOLIYA,
  AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
  OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
  R/O HOUSE NO. 11, GALI NO. 3,
  PARDESHIPURA,
  DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                               .....APPLICANT
  (BY MR. HITESH SHARMA, ADV. )

  AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
   THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
   POLICE STATION PARDESHIPURA,
   INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. GAGAN RAI S/O RAMCHARAN RAI,
   R/O 12,03, PARDESHIPURA,
   INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                           .....RESPONDENTS
  (BY MS. HARSHLATA SONI, GA)
     This petition coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
                                    -2-
                                                   M. Cr. C. No.59616 of 2021




                              O R D E R

This petition has been preferred by the applicant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Cr.P.C.') for quashment of FIR dated 10/10/2021 arising out of Crime No.773/2021 registered at Police Station Pardeshipura, Indore under Section 327 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').

The facts of the case in brief are that on 10/10/2021 complainant launched an FIR stating that at about 07:30 AM the applicant Ravi abused him by saying that how he has given his godown on rent without asking him. He demanded Rs.1,000/- from the complainant Gagan Rai. When complainant refused to pay, the applicant beated him and gave threat of life. Witnesses Deepak and Anoop have intervened. Thereafter, complainant Gagan Rai launched and FIR at Police Station Pardeshipura. Accordingly, offence has been registered against the applicant.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Complainant launched a false FIR and due to pressure of the complainant as his brother is an Advocate, a false case has been registered. All the offences except Section 327 of the IPC are bailable. As per the definition of Section 327 and 383 of the IPC, there is no extortion on the part of the applicant reviles the act of extortion is made out.

There is only a simple dispute happened between the applicant and complainant as they are neighbor for last 12 years to each other. There is a common wall between the house of the applicant and the complainant and tenant was creating nuisance by fixing electrical board on the wall by hitting with hammer and applicant only asked not to create any nuisance as there was a engagement programme in his house. Applicant is doing job in a reputed company. His brother and mother are also in government job and therefore, there is no question of extortion of money from the complainant. All other offences are bailable. Offence under Section 327 of the IPC is added by the police at later stage. No offence under Section 327 of IPC is prima-facie made out. Therefore, he prays that FIR dated 10/10/2021 bearing Crime No.773/2021 in respect of the offence under Section 327 of the IPC be quashed.

In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the orders delivered by this Court in the case of Lala Alias Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P. reported in LAWS (MPH)-2018-5- 280 and George Mangalapilly Vs. State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C. No.20085/2020 on 27/08/2020.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposed the same and prays for its rejection by submitting that there is sufficient material available on record to connect the applicant with the offence under Section 327 of the IPC.

Counsel for both the parties are heard at length and perused the case diary as well as other documents filed by the applicant.

It is established law that to bring home an offence under Section 327 of IPC, the prosecution is to prove First, (a) that the accused did an act in relation to the victim with the intention thereby to cause hurt to the victim, or, (b) with the knowledge hat his act is likely to cause hurt to the victim, and (c) the accused thereon has caused hurt to the victim; secondly the accused committed the act as above with the object (a) that the accused thereby would extort from the sufferer any property or any valuable security, or (b) that the accused committed the act (voluntarily causing hurt) as above to extort from any person interested in the sufferer any money or valuable security, or (c) because of accused's act of voluntarily causing hurt act aforesaid some person interested in the sufferer or the sufferer himself would be constrained to do some illegal act or some act which may facilitate he commission of a crime.

Counsel for the applicant contended that no valuable security or property has been handed over by the complainant to the applicant and he has not compelled to do anything which is illegal, therefore, ingredient of offence under Section 327 of the IPC is not completed and no offence is made out under Section 327 of the IPC. But actually delivery of possession of any property or valuable -5- M. Cr. C. No.59616 of 2021 security from the complainant or any other person is not necessary for constituting an offence under Section 327 of the IPC.

In the present matter as per the FIR it is alleged that the applicant demanded Rs.1,000/- and threatened the complainant that if he will not give the money, he will kill him. The aforesaid threatening and extortion is sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 327 of the IPC. It also shows that the applicant had certain mens rea to commit the offence. Thus invocation of power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. will not prevent the abuse of process of law in the present facts and circumstances of the case rather it will be a misuse.

In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another AIR 2012 SC criminal 1796 the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 57 pleased to observed as under:

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be -6- M. Cr. C. No.59616 of 2021 prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have Virendra singh adhikari 2014.03.20 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal -7- M. Cr. C. No.59616 of 2021 case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

Having carefully examined the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Gian Singh (Supra) and upon consideration of the material available on record, it is clear that interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not warranted.

Consequently this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for necessary information.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) J U D G E Tej Digitally signed by TEJPRAKASH VYAS Date: 2022.06.21 19:07:51 +05'30'