Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gaurav Singh Chadhar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 January, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 24th OF JANUARY, 2023
MCRC No.42118 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
GAURAV SINGH CHADHAR S/O GULAB SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION : ADRM BHOPAL,
R/O BUNGALOW NO.V/507, RAIL VIHAR, OFFICERS
COLONY, HABIBGANJ, BHOPAL (MP)
......PETITIONER
(BY SMT. MANJIT P.S. CHUCKAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION GOVINDPURA,
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MP)
2. VICTIM X
THROUGH POLICE STATION GOVINDPURA,
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MP)
......RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ALOK AGNIHOTRI - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)
(SHRI BHUPENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2)
................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 09.01.2023.
Pronounced on : 24.01.2023.
................................................................................................................................................
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the
following:
2
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR dated 07.05.2022 (Annexure-A/1) registered vide Crime No.244/2022 at Police Station Govindpura, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against him.
2. The quashing of FIR is being claimed mainly on the ground that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence on a complaint made by the complainant/respondent No.2.
3. As per the petitioner, if the allegations made against him are considered to be true at their face value even though the alleged offence is not made out against him. According to the petitioner, the complainant on a pressure created by her husband made a complaint to the police alleging false allegation just to implicate him whereas the petitioner and the complainant are known to each other since long and immediately before lodging the report, the complainant during course of recording her statement before the police has not alleged anything against the petitioner and on the contrary she has accepted that there was no such relationship between them so as to constitute offence of 376 of IPC. As per the petitioner, it is a malicious prosecution which deserves to be dismissed.
4. To reach a conclusion as to whether the FIR can be quashed in the existing circumstance, it is proper to mention relevant facts of the case which in a nutshell are as under:-
(4.1) That on 07.05.2022, an FIR got registered by complainant/respondent No.2 vide Crime No.244/2022 under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC against the petitioner narrating the incident 3 took place between 21.03.2021 and 04.05.2022. The father of the complainant/respondent No.2 working in the Railway Department died on 26.02.2019 and on an application made by the complainant/respondent No.2 to get compassionate appointment in place of her father, on 06.04.2021 she was appointed as a Senior Clerk in the Railway Department on compassionate basis. From May 2021 she started residing in a flat at Sagar Eden Garden Phase-2. On 10.02.2022, she was transferred from Bhopal to Harda at her own request. On 18.02.2022, the complainant/respondent No.2 got married to one Shubham Rajput who was the resident of Harda. On 08.04.2022, she applied for transfer from Harda to Bhopal at her own request. On 12.04.2022, she joined at Bhopal. From 13.04.2022 to 27.04.2022, the complainant/respondent No.2 was on leave from duty as she was in Harda due to her matrimonial problems. On 13.04.2022, the complainant/respondent No.2 issued a legal notice to her husband Shubham Rajput for appearing before the District Court Bhopal as she was filing a case of divorce by mutual consent on the pretext that her life is in danger with her husband. On 21.04.2022, she made a complaint to the police at Police Station Kotwali, Harda alleging harassment against her husband. On 28.04.2022, the husband of the complainant/respondent No.2 also made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police Harda against the complainant/respondent No.2 and also against the present petitioner alleging forgery of Rs.15,00,000/- and jewelry and also alleged conspiracy of the petitioner and the complainant against the husband of the complainant. On
05.05.2022, the statement of the complainant recorded by the SHO, Mahila Thana, Harda in pursuance to the complaint dated 28.04.2022 of Shubham Rajput. On 06.05.2022, the complainant tired to commit 4 suicide by cutting her wrist at Piparia Hoshangabad due to her matrimonial discord and harassment by her husband. On 06.05.2022, Rojnamcha was obtained under Right to Information Act containing the incident of committing suicide by the complainant cutting her wrist. On 06.05.2022, the Additional S.P. Narmadapuram vide communication No.4/22 asked the Administrator One Stop Centre Narmadapuram to call the complainant for counseling as she had tried to commit suicide after fighting with her husband so as to console her and to settle her down to proceed further in the life. Then on 07.05.2022, the matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband culminated into allegation of rape against the petitioner which according to the petitioner is totally false with an avowed intention to harass the petitioner which is nothing but a preemptive move by the complainant to humiliate the petitioner which is a clear abuse of process of law.
(4.2) As per the petitioner, on the face of complaint corroborated with the accompanying documents received under RTI Act, no offence is constituted and the FIR is, therefore, malicious. As per the petitioner, the intention of the complainant is to harass the petitioner by lodging a report against him and using same as a weapon against him. As per the petitioner, the FIR patently frivolous and vexatious as the sequel of incidents as mentioned clearly proves that no offence is constituted and as such, criminal prosecution cannot be continued only to harass the petitioner and the FIR, therefore, deserves to be quashed.
(4.3) According to the petitioner, the complaints dated 13.04.2022, 27.04.2022, 28.04.2022, statement of the complainant recorded 05.05.2022 and Rojnamcha dated 06.05.2022 clearly reveal that it is a case of matrimonial discord and within a few hours the 5 complainant has taken a u-turn alleging against the petitioner saying that she has been raped by him. This false allegation is only to harass the petitioner and a clear sign of malicious prosecution and the same is therefore, sought to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decisions of Supreme Court reported in (1977) 1 SCC 505 (Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar), (1977) 2 SCC 699 (State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and others), (1983) 1 SCC 1 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others), (1988) 1 SCC 692 (Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others), 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others), (2007) 12 SCC 1 (Inder Mohan Goswami and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others), (2011) 7 SCC 59 (Joseph Salvaraj A Vs. State of Gujrat and others), (2013) 11 SCC 673 (Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.), (2021) 5 SCC 524 (Kapil Agarwal and others Vs. Sanjay Sharma And others) and 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 721 (Wyeth Limited & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.) and submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these cases, FIR can be quashed.
6. Per contra, Shri Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that in view of the allegation made against the petitioner and the photographs annexed in the petition itself it is clear that the petitioner and the complainant were in some relationship and it is not a case in which both are unknown to each other. It is also submitted by the counsel for the State that from the allegation made against the petitioner it is clear that he being the higher officer exploited 6 the complainant and on his pressure she surrendered before him and as such, without her consent, the petitioner developed physical relation which falls within the definition of rape, therefore, the offence of 376 of IPC has rightly been registered against the petitioner.
7. Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent No.2 has supported the submission made by the counsel for State and submitted that it is not a case in which FIR can be quashed only because the complainant is holding higher post and exploited the petitioner who is subordinate to her. He submitted that the allegation made against the petitioner is sufficient to constitute the offence registered against the petitioner and other aspects according to the counsel for complainant/respondent No.2 cannot be considered to be true at this juncture because that would be the part of evidence and will be determined during the course of evidence in the trial. The petition according to him is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. In support of his submission, the counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court passed in SLP (CRL.) No.2953 of 2022 parties being Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has given much stress upon the fact that on 05.05.2022 the complainant's statement has been recorded in which several questions have been asked about her relationship with the petitioner, but she has not alleged anything against him and on the contrary she has apprised the police that her husband is unnecessarily harassing and terrorizing her and also he was in the habit of making allegation even against the petitioner. The complainant/respondent No.2 has very categorically 7 denied about any relationship between her and the petitioner. Although, she has stated that the petitioner is her boss and except official relationship, nothing more is between them. She has also emphasized that a complaint was made by her husband to the Superintendent of Police, Harda on 28.04.2022 in which her husband made several allegations against his wife i.e. the present complainant/respondent No.2 and also made allegation that the complainant and the petitioner have illicit relation. After recording the statement on 05.05.2022, the complainant/respondent No.2 tried to commit suicide on 06.05.2022 at Piparia Hoshangabad by cutting her wrist. Even on the said date i.e. 06.05.2022 when she tried to commit suicide due to misbehavior and ill- treatment given by her husband, in a enquiry made by police she has not alleged anything against the petitioner. Rojnamcha Sanha dated 06.05.2022 is also available in the charge-sheet.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the complainant/respondent No.2 was an educated lady and was not happy with her husband as he was ill-treating her being a criminal mentality having past criminal records and terrorizing the complainant/respondent No.2 as she has clarified in her statement recorded on 05.05.2022. But all of a sudden, on 07.05.2022 as to what had happened to lodge an FIR which is impugned in this petition taking somersault alleging against the petitioner that too about the incident took place between 21.03.2021 and 04.05.2022. In the FIR, it is stated that on 04.05.2022 when the complainant/respondent No.2 was staying in a railway retiring room, the petitioner came to that room and developed physical relation but when on 05.05.2022 her statement has been recorded before the police, she neither disclosed that incident nor made any allegation against the petitioner but on the contrary despite putting specific question with 8 regard to relationship between them, she denied any physical relation or any other type of relationship with the petitioner. It according to the petitioner clearly indicates that a false complaint made by the complainant/respondent No.2 just to harass the petitioner that too at the instance of her husband because he was not only harassing the complainant/respondent No.2 but also annoyed with her as he was suspecting the relationship of the petitioner and complainant/respondent No.2.
9. In a case of Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that where the allegations set out in the complaint or charge-sheet do not constitute any offence, the High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash the order passed by a Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence.
10. Further, in case of L. Muniswamy and others (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that if upon consideration of record of the case and documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reason for so doing. It is also observed by the Supreme Court that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As per the Supreme Court, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of Court or that the ends of justice requires that the 9 proceeding ought to be quashed.
11. Likewise in a case of Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others (supra), the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"8. Another important consideration which is to be kept in mind is as to when the High Court acting under the provisions of Section 482 should exercise the inherent power insofar as quashing of criminal proceedings are concerned. This matter was gone into in greater detail in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi [(1976) 3 SCC 736 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 507 : 1976 Supp SCR 123 : 1976 Cri LJ 1533] where the scope of Sections 202 and 204 of the present Code was considered and while laying down the guidelines and the grounds on which proceedings could be quashed this Court observed as follows: [SCC para 5, p. 741 : SCC (Cri) pp. 511-12] "Thus it may be safely held that in the following cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside:
(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;
(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like.
The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies 10 where the High Court can quash proceedings."
12. Further, in a case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others (supra), the Supreme Court has observed as under :-
"7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."
13. Similarly, in a case of Bhajan Lal and others (supra), the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"102 (5) 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.
* * * * * 102 (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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. In a case of Inder Mohan Goswami and another (supra), the Supreme Court dealing with the inherent power of the High Court provided under Sections 482 of Cr.P.C., has observed as under:-
"Scope and ambit of courts' powers under Section 482 CrPC
23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope 11 and ambit of courts' powers under Section 482 CrPC. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised:
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
24. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute.
* * * * *
28. This Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404] observed that the wholesome power under Section 482 CrPC entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this Court and other courts.
* * * * *
31. This Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] observed in para 7 as under : (SCC p. 695) "7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to 12 consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."
32. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] this Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of CrPC under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this Court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) "102. (1) 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or 13 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.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (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 Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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."
* * * * *
46. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
15. Also in a case of Joseph Salvaraj A. (supra), the Supreme Court dealt with the inherent power of the High Court provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has held as under:-
"10. The allegations in the FIR clearly disclose a civil dispute between the parties and the FIR seems to have been filed only with an intention to harass and humiliate the appellant. This was a pre-emptive move by the complainant.
* * * * *
20. Thus, looking to the matter from all angles, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution of the appellant for commission of the alleged offences would be clear abuse of the 14 process of law. The FIR under the circumstances deserves to be quashed at the threshold. We accordingly do so. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The FIR dated 5-9-2006 lodged by Respondent 4 complainant with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad stands quashed and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom also stand quashed."
16. Likewise, in a case of Paramjeet Batra (supra), the Supreme Court dealing with the power provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to the High Court has observed as under:-
"7. It is necessary to note here that office report dated 22-8- 2012 indicates that the contesting respondent i.e. Respondent 2 was directed to be served through the Resident Commissioner vide Registrar's order dated 5-12-2011. He has accordingly been served. He has, however, neither cared to appear in person nor has he engaged any counsel. We, therefore, proceed to deal with the submissions of the counsel for the appellant."
17. In a case of Kapil Agarwal and others (supra), the Supreme Court dealt with the power provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to the High Court has observed as under:-
"18. However, at the same time, if it is found that the subsequent FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. In that case, the complaint case will proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C."
18. Further, in a case of Wyeth Limited & Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"14. A careful reading of the complaint, the gist of which we have extracted above would show that none of the ingredients of any of the offences complained against the appellants are made out. Even if all the averments contained in the complaint are taken to be true, they do not make out any of the offences alleged against the appellants. Therefore, we do not know how an FIR was registered and a charge-sheet was also filed.
* * * * * 15
18. It is too late in the day to seek support from any precedents, for the proposition that if no offence is made out by a careful reading of the complaint, the complaint deserves to be quashed."
19. In view of the law on which the petitioner has placed reliance and the view taken by the Supreme Court if the aforesaid cases, it is clear that even at initial stage the High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash the FIR. The Supreme Court has observed repeatedly that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to be limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The High Court is also entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing such proceeding to continue would be an abuse of process of Court.
20. The Supreme Court has also observed that while exercising powers provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. it is the duty of the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. The guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in a case of Bhajan Lal and others (supra) and the categories in which FIR can also be quashed in a petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or in exercise of inherent power of the High Court provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is clear that if High Court comes to a conclusion where the allegations made in the FIR 16 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. The said judgment further provides that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings 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, the power can be exercised and FIR can be quashed.
21. As per the discussion made hereinabove, it is clear that the complainant/respondent No.2 in her complaint narrated the incident of 21.03.2021 and also of 06.04.2021 and that was continued according to the complainant and lastly on 04.05.2022.
But, in a statement recorded by the police of the complainant/respondent No.2 on 05.05.2022 that too on a complaint made by her husband to the police against her in which he has also suspected relationship between the complainant and the petitioner even after putting specific questions by the police to the complainant/respondent No.2 which were as under:-
"iz-6- vkius bl nkSjku Mhvkj,e vkfQl es fu;qfDr ds laca/k es fdlh vkfQlj@,Mhvkj,e Jh xkSjoflag lj ls eqykdkr@ckrphr dh Fkh D;k \ mRrj& LVsuksxzkQj ds isij nsus o Qsy gksus ds ckn rkRdkyhu ,-ih-vks- lj ls] lhfu;j Mhiksvks lj ls] ,Mhvkj,e Jh xkSjoflag lj ls rFkk rkRdkyhu Mhvkj,e lj ls eqykdkr dh Fkh rFkk eSus mu lHkh ls fu;qfDr ds laca/k es vkxs dh izfdz;k ds ckjs es ppkZ dh Fkh rc lHkh vf/kdkjh;ks us dgk Fkk fd QkbZy ns[kdj crkrs gS eqykdkr ds le; esjh ekW Jherh lhek lksusj lkFk es FkhA iz-10- vkius 'kqHkeflag dks ,Mhvkj,e lj Jh xkSjoflag ls dc o fdrus ckj feyk;k Fkk dgk feyk;k Fkk \ mRrj& eSus 'kqHkeflag dks ,Mhvkj,e Jh xkSjoflag lj ls dHkh ugh feyk;k u gh ,Mhvkje lj 'kqHkeflag ls dHkh feys gSA iz-11- vkidks o 'kqHkeflag dks ,Mhvkj,e Jh xkSjoflag lj us 'kknh djus dh lykg nh Fkh ;k ugh \ 17 mRrj& ,Mhvkj,e lj us eq>s o 'kqHkeflag dks dHkh Hkh 'kknh djus dh lykg ugha fn;s os esjs cksl gS eSa muls bl ckjs esa ckr ugha dj ldrh pwafd mudk vkSj esjk fjys'ku flQZ vkfQl rd gS ikfjokfjd ugh gSA ;fn 'kqHkeflag us ,slk dksbZ vkjksi yxk;k gS rks og fujk/kkj o >wBk gS og flQZ Lo;a dh o mlds ifjokj dh xyrh;ks dks Nqikus ds fy;s vuxZy vkjksi eq>s ij o ,Mhvkj,e lj ij yxk jgk gSA iz-12- vkius vkidh 'kknh es ,Mhvkj,e lj Jh xkSjoflag dks vkeaf=r fd;k Fkk ;k ugh \ mRrj& eSusa vkfQfly esjs LVkQ ds lkFk lHkh vf/kdkjh;ks dks 'kknh es vkeaf=r fd;k Fkk O;fDrxr :i ls eSus ,Mhvkj,e lj Jh xkSjoflag dks vkeaf=r ugh fd;k u gh os esjh lxkbZ o 'kknh es mifLFkr gq;sA iz-25- vki vius ifr ds lkFk fnukad 18@4@22 ls 24@4@2022 rd dgka jgs bl chp vkidh ,Mhvkj,e lj xkSjoflag ls fdrus ckj eksckbZy Qksu ij fdl uEcj ls D;k ppkZ gqbZ foLrkj ls crk;s \ mRrj & fnukad 18@4@22 dks bankSj gksVy es :ds rc Hkh esjs ifr dk O;ogkj ugh cnyk rc Hkh esjs ifr esjs Åij vkjksi izR;kjksi yxkrs gq;s pfj= ds ckjs es mYVk lh/kk cksy jgs Fks rFkk xkyh xykSp dj jgs Fks lds ckn fnukad 19@4@22 dks [kkVw';keth ds fy;s fudys iwjh jkr xkMh es gh Fks rc Hkh cnrehth djrs jgs esjs lkFk mlds ckn ogka ls t;iqj vk;s t;iqj es Hkh esjs ifr dk ogh O;ogkj jgk bl nkSjku esjs ifr dkQh Mahªad djh gqbZ Fkh vkSj dksbZ lw[kk u'kk Hkh fd;k gqvk Fkk t;iwj es fdlh gksVy es ugh :ds fQj fpRrkSxM+ vk;s QksV x;s ?kwes lds ckn fnukad 23@4@22 dks gjnk okil vk;s bl nkSjku esjh xkSjoflag lj ls fdlh Hkh eksckbZy uEcj ls fdlh Hkh rjg dh ckrphr ugh gqbZ gS rFkk blds vykok esjs ifr us eq>s vU; fdlh O;fDr ls Hkh ckrphr ugh djus fn;k ?kj vkus ds ckn Hkh O;ogkj ugh cnyk tc rd fdlh Hkh u'ks es ugh gksrs Fks rc rd Bhd ls ckr djrs Fks tc u'ks es gks tkrs Fks rks esjs ls vi'kCnks ls ckr djrs Fks rFkk iwjs le; nqO;Zogkj fd;k djrs FksA esjh fnukad 23@4@22 dks 'kke djhc 6&7 cts ds vklikl eSus xkSjoflag lj dks Qksu yxkdj crk;k Fkk eS fnukad 13@4@22 ls M;wVh ugh xbZ gwW rFkk orZeku es eS gjnk es gwW eq> ij dksbZ dk;Zokgh rks ugh gksxh eS M;wVh TokbZu d: rks dksbZ izkCye rks ugh gksxh rks lj us dgk fd vki vk tk;s vius lhfu;j Mh,lVh lj ls ckr dj ys eS bl lEcU/k es dqN ugh crk ldrk blds vykok dksbZ ckr ugh gqbZA iz'u- 27- D;k vki ,Mhvkj,e lj Jh xkSjoflag ls vkfQl VkbZe@vkfQl VkbZe ds ckn feyrh tqyrh jgrh gks ;k ugh \ mRrj & ugh A iz- 28- ,Mhvkj,e lj xkSjo flag us D;k vkids ukSdjh yxokus es dksbZ gsYi dh gS \ mRrj& esjh vuqdEik fu;qDrh dh gS esjh gsYi xkSjoflag lj us dksbZ gsYi ugh dh gSA iz- 29- ,Mhvkj,e lj xkSjo flag vkidh 'kknh ds ckn Hkh vkils yxkrkj laidZ esa eksckbZy Qksu@vU; ek/;e ls laidZ es fdl dkj.k ls jgs gS \ mRrj & eksckby Qksu ds ek/;e ls laidZ esa jgs gS 'kknh ds ckn x`gLFk thou esa vk jgs ijs'kkuh ds dkj.k ,Mhvkj,e lj esjs laidZ es jgs gS esjs ls laidZ esjh Vz~kalQj ds laca/k es ckrphr djus ds fy;s gqvk Fkk blls igys ftruh Hkh ckr ,Mhvkj,e lj ls esjh gqbZ gS vkfQl laca/kh dke ds fy;s dh xbZ Fkh A iz-30- vkius vius ifr dks ;g ckr crk;k Fkk fd vkids ekrk firk ds nsgkar mijkar ,Mhvkj,e lj Jh xkSjoflag lj us vkids fy;s ds;j Vsdj dk dke fd;k Fkk rFkk mUgksus vkidh ukSdjh yxok;h muds vkids mij dbZ lkjs ,glku gS \ mRrj& ,slk eSus vius ifr ls dHkh Hkh dqN ugh dgk mUgksus >wBk vkjksi yxk;k gS eSus flQZ bruk crk;k Fkk fd lj esjs vkfQl es esjs xkbZM dh rjg gSA iz-31- vki dHkh ,Mhvkj,e lj xkSjoflag ds lkFk muds ?kj xbZ gS ;k ugh dHkh muds ifjokj ls feyh gS ugh \ mRrj & ugh xbZ esjs Qsehyh VeZl ugh gSA iz-33- vkius ,oa ,Mhvkj,e lj Jh xkSjoflag us feydj vkosnd 'kqHkeflag dks viuh tky es Qalkdj /kks[kk/kM+h dj vkius mlls 'kknh dh rFkk vki nksuks us feydj vkosnd ds 18 uxnh :i;s o lksukpkanh ds tsojkr gM+i fy;s gS \ mRrj & ;g vkjksi iwjh rjg >wB gS ;fn eq>s 'kqHkeflag ls /kks[kk/kMh dj 'kknh djuk gksrk rks eS viuh ekW ds lEiw.kZ lksus ds tojkr ,ao vU; lkeku ysdj 'kqHkeflag ds ?kj D;ks tkrh rFkk 'kknh ds igys gjnk LFkkukUrj.k D;ks djkrh 'kqHkeflag flQZ eq> ij blfy;s vkjksi yxk jgk gS fd eS vukFk gwW 'kkldh; ukSdjh djrh gw rks mlds vkjksiks ds ncko es vkdj mlls viuh ftUnxh dk le>kSrk d: rFkk og esjs lkFk tSlk pkgs oSlk O;ogkj djrk jgs vkSj eS pqipki lgu djrh jgwWA ,Mhvkj,e lj dHkh dHkkj vko';drk iM+us ij esjh gsYi dj nsrs gS ;g ckr esjs ifr dks irk gS blhfy;s ,Mhvkj,e lj ds mij Hkh >wBs vkjksi yxk jgk gS rkfd lj Hkh ncko es vk tk;s rFkk esjs cksl gksus ds ukrs eq>s le>kSrk djkus ij etcwj dj lds esjk ifr 'kqHkeflag vijkf/kd izo`fRr dk O;fDr gS ;g ckr mlus Loa; us esjs lkeus dgk gS og bl izdkj ds d`R; djus es ekfgj gS rFkk og tkurk gS fd ljdkjh ukSdjh okys O;fDr fdl ckr ls ncko es vk;sxsa eS iwjh rjg ckfyd gwW ljdkjh ukSdjh dj jgh gwW jsYos es gsM DydZ gwW eSus 'kqHkeflag ls vyx gksus dk fu.kZ; lksp le> dj fy;k gWWw D;ksafd eS fdlh Hkh O;fDr dh fdlh rjg dh izrkM+uk ugh ld ldrh eS fQj dg jgh gWwa fd esjs ifr }kjk tks Hkh vkjksi esjs mij o ,Mhvkj,e lj ij yxk;s x;s gS eux<+ar o cscqfu;kn gSA eSa 'kqHke ds lkFk ugha jguk pkgrh gwW eSsus ;g c;ku iw.kZ gks'k gok'k es lksp le>dj tks lgh gS ogh fy[kok;k gS i<+dj ns[kk lgh gksus ls gLrk{kj djrh gwWA"
and even on 06.05.2022 when the complainant/respondent No.2 tried to commit suicide by cutting her wrist and in the Rojnamcha Sanha the said incident was recorded in which also she has informed the police that she would lodge complaint against her husband but on the very next day i.e. on 07.05.2022 she made a complaint to the police against the petitioner alleging allegation of rape. There is no explanation and disclosure of the complainant/respondent No.2 as to what had happened within 48 hours with her which compelled her to change her statement because on 05.05.2022 before the police she denied relationship with the petitioner that too on a specific question even raised by the police. It is, therefore, now clear that the complainant/respondent No.2 without any probable cause initiated criminal proceeding against the petitioner. The over all conduct of the complainant/respondent No.2 appears to be suspicious because a day before lodging the FIR she has repeatedly denied her relationship with the petitioner and on the contrary shown great 19 respect towards him.
22. Although, the counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent No.2 has placed reliance in a case of Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr. (supra), especially the observation made in paragraph-30 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-
"30. The fact that the complaint may have been initiated by reason of political vendetta is not in itself ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, as observed by Bhagwati, CJ in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and Others (1987) 1 SCC
288. It is well established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified and based upon adequate evidence, does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant. Though the view of Bhagwati, CJ in Sheonandan Paswan (supra) was the minority view, there was no difference of opinion with regard to this finding. To quote Krishna Iyer, J., in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471, "if the use of power is of fulfillment of a legitimate object the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal."
The Supreme Court in this case has observed that the criminal proceeding if otherwise justified and based upon adequate evidence, the same does not vitiate on account of mala fide or otherwise vendetta, but the case in hand is not of that nature.
23. Indubitably, the petitioner is a higher rank officer of the railway department in which the complainant/respondent No.2 is also performing duties. The complainant/respondent No.2 has very open hearted accepted and apprised the police that the petitioner has never misused his power and relationship between them is as a master and servant and showing full regard and respect towards the petitioner, however, on the next day she changed her version. Not only this, but even after a long time she did not apprise anybody 20 about the alleged incident which according to her took place somewhere in the month of March, 2021 and was continued up-to 04.05.2022. Except her statement, there is no material available on record indicating that the petitioner at any point of time tried to harass the complainant/respondent No.2 and committed alleged crime with her. It is also not in dispute that the complainant/respondent No.2 and her husband were fighting against each other and the complainant herself levelled serious allegations against her husband saying that he was a person of criminal mentality, misbehaving with her and with the ill-treatment given by him the complainant tried to commit suicide, then it can be gathered that for some reason best known to the complainant, she has made false allegation against the petitioner and that might be under the pressure of her husband because her husband in his complaint shown suspicion about the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant/respondent No.2.
24. The Supreme Court has also observed in number of occasions that if criminal proceeding manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite someone due to private and personal grudge then the same can be quashed and cannot be permitted to continue.
25. Even during the course of arguments the counsel for respondent No.1/State and even the counsel for complainant/respondent No.2 failed to demonstrate and satisfy the Court for not explaining and disclosing the alleged incident before 21 the police even when the statement of the complainant was being recorded just before one day of lodging the FIR in a complaint made by her husband against her. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the allegation made by the complainant/respondent No.2 against the petitioner in the FIR and initiating criminal proceeding against him is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice relying upon the view as has been expressed by the Supreme Court and quoted hereinabove, this is a fit case in which this Court can exercise inherent power provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR which is impugned in this petition whereby the offence vide Crime No.244/2022 has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station Govindpura, District Bhopal because the same is a malicious prosecution and if said proceeding is allowed to continue that would defeat the very purpose of exercising inherent power provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
26. The petition is accordingly allowed. The FIR registered against the petitioner by the complainant/respondent No.2 at Police Station Govindpura, District Bhopal vide Crime No.244/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC is hereby quashed.
27. Needless to say that all subsequent proceedings initiated pursuant to said FIR will automatically come to an end and accordingly, set aside.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE ac/-
ANIL CHOUDHARY 2023.01.24 18:44:11 +05'30'