Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harsh Tiwari (Minor) Thr Father Shri ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 July, 2019
1
MCRC No. 2225/2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2225/2019
Harsh Tiwari vs. State of M.P. & Anr.
Gwalior, dtd. 25/7/2019
Shri Ravi Ballabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant praying for quashment of First Information Report No. 242/2018 registered by Police Station Kotwali Gwalior, District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 336, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Criminal case No. 316/2018 pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, Gwalior and its all consequential proceedings.
2. The prosecution story in nutshell is that complainant Smt. Sudha Baijal filed a written complaint before the SHO, Kotwali Gwalior to the effect that on 06/7/2018, the electric wires of the petitioner fell down on the tin shed of the house of the complainant and when she asked the applicant and other co-accused persons to remove it, they refused to do so. The complainant filed a complaint before the Electricity Department against the said act of the accused persons. On 10/7/2018, the applicant along with his brother rushed into her house 2 MCRC No. 2225/2019 and threatened her to withdraw the complaint filed before the Electricity Department otherwise to face the dire consequences. The mother of the applicant also started pelting stones to the complainant's house. Upon this written complainant, the police has registered the FIR against the applicant and other co-accused persons under the aforesaid sections.
3- Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a false report has been lodged against the applicant because a civil litigation is going on in between the parties and as the proceeding under Section 145 of CrPC, which was filed by the son of the complainant, was dropped by the Court below on 05/7/2018, on the very next date the concocted story has been created. The applicant is a student and is preparing for IIT entrance examination. The brother of the applicant is also studing in NLU. It is further submitted that there is nothing in the FIR to show that the applicant has committed any offence under Sections 294, 323, 336, 506 and 34 of the IPC. He has been falsely implicated in order to pressurize the mother of the applicant to compromise the civil dispute which was going on in between the parties. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants prays that the application may be allowed and the FIR No. 242/2018 lodged against the present applicant and Case No. 316/2018 pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, Gwalior be 3 MCRC No. 2225/2019 quashed.
4- Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the same. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the family members of the applicant are using illegal electricity connection for water-pump. The line is going from above the house of the complainant. On 06/7/2018, the said line fell down on the tin shed of the complainant and despite making requests again and again, the accused persons did not remove the said line and when the complainant made a complaint to the electricity department, the aforesaid offences have been committed by the applicant and other accused persons. It is further submitted that on the basis of materials collected during investigation, no interference is warranted. Hence, prayed to reject the application filed by the applicant.
5. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Rakhi Mishra vs. State of Bihar and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 772] has held as under:-
"5. ... It is settled law that the power under Section 482 of CrPC is exercised by the High Court only in exceptional circumstances only when a prima facie case is not made out against the accused."
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Munshiram vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., [(2018) 5 SCC 678] has held as under:- 4 MCRC No. 2225/2019
"10. ... Further, it is no more res integra that Section 482 CrPC has to be utilised cautiously while quashing the FIR. This Court in a catena of cases has quashed FIR only after it comes to a conclusion that continuing investigation in such cases would only amount to abuse of the process. .."
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Tilly Gifford vs. Michael Floyd Eshwar and Anr., [(2018) 11 SCC 205] has held as under:-
"3. A perusal of the order of the High Court released on 21- 5-2015 would indicate that the High Court has gone far beyond the contours of its power and jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding, the extent of such jurisdiction having been dealt with by this Court in numerous pronouncements over the last half century. Time and again, it has been emphasised by this Court that the power under Section 482 CrPC would not permit the High Court to go into disputed questions of fact or to appreciate the defence of the accused. The power to interdict a criminal proceeding at the stage of investigation is even more rare. Boradly speaking, a criminal investigation, unless tainted by clear mala fides, should not be foreclosed by a court of law."
6. From perusal of the documents available on record, it cannot be said that no offence has taken place or there is no ground available to proceed further with the trial against the present applicant.
7. The truthfulness of the statement or circumstances or documents of the prosecution cannot be questioned at this stage by the defence. The material on record discloses the grave suspicion. On the basis of the material on record, it can be inferred that the accused might have committed an offence.
8. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. CH. Bhajanlal [AIR 1992 SC 604] that 5 MCRC No. 2225/2019 when allegations in complaint clearly constitute cognizable offence, then quashing of FIR is not justified. Similarly, in the case of State of Orissa and another vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo [(2006) 2 SCC 272], it has been observed that inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the High Courts should not embark upon an inquiry as to reliability of evidence to sustain the allegations, which is the function of the trial Court.
9. Truthfulness or falsehood of allegations made by the complainant in his complaint is to be established by evidence to be produced before the trial Court and only looking to the FIR it cannot be inferred that prima facie no offence is made out against the present applicant. Therefore, in the case in hand, there is no question of invoking inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR.
10. Consequently, the petition filed by the applicants under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
ALOK
KUMAR Judge
2019.07.25
17:00:17
AKS
+05'30'