Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sagar Talreja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35402
1 MCRC-19697-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 12th OF DECEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19697 of 2023
SAGAR TALREJA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bharat Dembla and Shri Dinesh Rawat, Learned Counsel for petitioners.
Shri Shashikant Bhati- Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1- State.
None for respondent No.2.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by petitioners seeking quashment of FIR No.73 of 2016 registered at PS Juni Indore, for offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 384, 389, 34, 109, 120-B, 201 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Protection of Debtors Act, 1939 as well as all as Final Report and other consequential criminal proceedings arising out of said Crime.
Facts giving rise to present petition in short are that respondent No.2 Mukesh was admitted to Suyog Hospital in an unconscious state in regard to attempt to commit suicide by inhailing/consuming sleeping pills Alphrazoram kept in his home. On receipt of information from the Hospital, Rojnamcha Sanha No.28 of 2016 was recorded and matter was enquired. As per statement of Mukesh recorded on 16-02-2016 he alleged that he was in need of money. He took a loan of Rs. 5 lac from Prakash Talreaj at the rate of 4% interest per annum but Prakash Talreja was demanding interest @ 10% per annum. When complainant told him that the rate of interest is too much, then Prakash, Akash, and Sagar told him that they would sanction the loan against his house. When he refused their offer, then Praksh, Akash and Sagar gave him threat if he would not Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 13-12-2024 18:10:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35402 2 MCRC-19697-2023 repay the amount with rate of interest, then they would falsely implicate him in a false case. They started to pressurize him. Thereafter complainant sold his house to them on two crore forty one lack.Prakash deposited Rs. 20 lac in the shape of cheque in his account. When complainant demanded the remaining amount from then, they refused to do so and asked to give his cheque and passbook. and gave threatening to him that they would implicate him in a false case and will send him in jail and took his cheque and passbook. On 14-02-2026, when the complainant went to their house for taking remaining amount, Prkash, Akash and Sagar started to abuse him and gave him beating. On such allegations, FIR vide Crime No.73 of 2016 was registered at PS Juni Indore for offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 384, 389, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Section 3/4 of Protection of Debtors Act, 1939 against Prakash Talreja, Akash Talreja (herein petitioners No.1 and 2) and Sagar. MLC of Mukesh was conducted. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Relevant seizure memo was prepared. After completion of investigation and other formalities, Final Report was submitted by police on 14-04-2016 under Section 173 of CrPC for offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 384, 389,34, 109, 120-B, 201 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Protection of Debtors Act against petitioners Prakash, Akash and co-accused Sagar and Ishwari wife of Mulchand. Hence, this petition.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. If the contents of FIR are taken on its face value, prima facie no offence is made out against the petitioners. The allegations made in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence. The criminal proceedings is based on mala fide intention and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. The petitioners had no connection with the alleged crime.FIR was registered after two days of the incident. It is further contended that the spot map shows 99 Gopal Bag, Indore, the residence of respondent where no evidence has been produced on behalf of prosecution in this regard. It is further contended on behalf of petitioners that the complainant is not Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 13-12-2024 18:10:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35402 3 MCRC-19697-2023 appearing before the Trial Court concerned despite several warrants having been issued against him. He is deliberately avoiding service to protract litigation against the petitioners. The petitioners No.1 Sagar Talreja and petitioner No.2 Akash Talreja at the time of incident were students. Now petitioner No.1 is an Engineer and petitioner No.2 Akash Talereja is an Interior Designer. Because of false implication the petitioners are facing trial and suffering hard. Their life and bright future have become spoiled.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the quashment of FIR/charge sheet and has submitted that there are specific allegations in the FIR duly supported by witnesses. After collecting sufficient material, police has filed Final Repor against the petitioners and others for commission offences as mentioned above. Hence, at this stage, F.I.R/charge sheet cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before considering the rival contention put forth by learned counsel for the parties, this Court would like to consider the scope of interference under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023/ Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held as under :-
"27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 13-12-2024 18:10:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35402
4 MCRC-19697-2023 particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be:
27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed forconsidering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.
27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 13-12-2024 18:10:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35402
5 MCRC-19697-2023 intended to provide specific protection to an accused.
27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender.
27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.
27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a "civil wrong" with no "element of criminality" and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.
27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full- fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.
27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained.
27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 13-12-2024 18:10:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35402 6 MCRC-19697-2023 was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution.
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.
27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge.
27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist. [Ref. State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary; Rupan Deol Bajaj v.Kanwar Pal Singh Gill; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P.; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate; State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.; Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala; V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State of U.P.; Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu; Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma; Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar; M.Krishnan v. Vijay Singh; Savita v. State of Rajasthan and S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat.] Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 13-12-2024 18:10:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35402 7 MCRC-19697-2023 27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence.
28. At this stage, we may also notice that the principle stated by this Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia was reconsidered and explained in two subsequent judgments of this Court in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma and M.N. Damani v. S.K. Sinha. In the subsequent judgment, the Court held that, that judgment did not declare a law of universal application and what was the principle relating to disputes involving cases of a predominantly civil nature with or without criminal intent."
Adverting to the facts of present case, it is apparent that as per prosecution, allegations against petitioners- accused regarding sale transaction of complainant's house at 99, Gopal Bag Colony, Indore and agricultural land at Ashta resulted in causing him hurt and of using obscene acts by accused, exhortation and creating fear of accusation of offence. As per MLC report , ingestion of unknown substance, having dull drowsiness, with mild frowth from mouth was found. Respondent was admitted in unconscious state who attempted to commit suicide by inhailing/consuming sleeping pills i.e. Anzilum 0.5 mg (Alprazolam) tablets. Prima facie, the allegation made against the present applicant and other co-accused makes out cognizable offence and contentions of the petitioners that the criminal proceedings is based on mala fide intention and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, is a question of fact which can be decided only after recording of evidence of witnesses. When the investigation by the police is already complete, the Court should not go into the merits of allegations Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 13-12-2024 18:10:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35402 8 MCRC-19697-2023 either in FIR or Charge sheet. This court while exercising its power under section 482 of Cr.P.C cannot decide the correctness and genuineness of the allegations as the same can be decided only after recording of the evidence of witnesses. So far as the contention of the petitioners that the complainant and his witnesses are not turning up for recording the statement is concerned, it is an obligatory on the part of the Trial Court to proceed in the trial in accordance with law.
In the light of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that it cannot delve into disputed questions of fact and examine the probable defence taken by petitioners in the present petition while invoking the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Consequently, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE MKB Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 13-12-2024 18:10:08