Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagmohan Singh Bhadoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 July, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.1817/2020
(Jagmohan Singh Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P. & another)
Gwalior, Dated:-27/07/2020
Shri Raj Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwah, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondents/State.
Matter is heard through video conferencing. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner praying for direction to the respondents to conduct a proper investigation in Crime No. 352/2019 registered at Police Station Gormi, District Bhind (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 of IPC and to file charge-sheet in the matter.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that status report was called with regard to progress of investigation in the present case. The police has registered the case and investigated the matter only against Tapalle @ Sanjeev Jain, whereas one Sooraj Singh Tomar was also involved in commission of the offence. In support of this submission, copy of concerned sale deed (Annexure-A/2) has been filed which apparently shows the involvement of Sooraj Singh Tomar, but despite filing of complaint against Sooraj Singh Tomar (Annexure-A/3), concerning police is not taking any action against Sooraj Singh Tomar. Hence, prayed to direct the investigating Authority to take action against Sooraj Singh Tomar. 2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.1817/2020 (Jagmohan Singh Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P. & another) Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the petition and has submitted that in order dated 30/11/2017 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.10446/2017 (Prabal Dogra Vs. Superintendent of Police, Gwalior & State of MP), the Court has specifically observed that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is very limited and shelter of aforesaid Section should be taken in very exceptional cases only. Learned State counsel has placed reliance on paragraph Nos.13 & 23 of order passed in Prabal Dogra (supra), which are extracted below for ready reference:-
"(13) Thus, it is clear that only when a person who has been arraigned as an accused points out that investigation is being done because of extraneous influence, or mala fide, or bias or in short that the investigation is a tainted investigation, and an extraordinary case of gross abuse of power by the investigating officer is made out, only then the Courts can interfere in the matter and can issue directions for ensuring free and fair investigation.
(23) Thus, where a complaint is made disclosing the commission of cognizable offence, then it is mandatory on the part of the police to register the F.I.R. In the present case, the allegations made in the F.I.R., do disclose the commission of cognizable offence. Thus, the police did not commit any mistake by registering the F.I.R. in the matter. Whether the allegations made in the F.I.R. or case diary statements of the witnesses are worth reliable or not, it is for the investigating officer to form its opinion after concluding the investigation. This Court cannot supervise the investigation by issuing directions as to in what manner the investigation is to be done. It is the prerogative of the investigating officer unless and until, it is shown that the investigating officer is 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.1817/2020 (Jagmohan Singh Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P. & another) doing a biased investigation because of some extraneous considerations or mala fides. This Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
cannot direct the police to investigate the case from a particular point of view also. There is no allegation against the investigating officer with regard to dereliction from duties. Even the investigating officer has not been made a party to this petition. Even the Doctor who had examined the complainant and has given the M.L.C. report, has not been made a party to this application, therefore, the allegations of mala fides against him can not be considered. No allegations of mala fides have been made against the concerning Doctor, except by mentioning that a false M.L.C. report has been prepared in connivance with the Doctor. Further more, whether the M.L.C. report was right or manipulated, can be proved during Trial while cross examining the concerning witness." Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the available record.
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:-
"482. Saving for inherent power of High Court - 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."
The powers of High Court under Section 482 of CrPC are partly administrative and partly judicial. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Muniswami [AIR 1977 SC 1489] held the section envisages three circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, "to give effect to an order under CrPC, to 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.1817/2020 (Jagmohan Singh Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P. & another) prevent abuse of the process of the court, and to secure the ends of justice."
The jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is discretionary. The Court may depend upon the facts of a given case. Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers under Section 482 of CrPC. It is true that there powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
It is also settled law that the inherent power under Section 482 of CrPC has to be exercised for the ends of the justice and should not be arbitrarily exercised to cut short the normal process of a criminal trial.
In view of above and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation.
Consequently, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. sans substance and is hereby dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge Shubhankar* SHUBHANKAR MISHRA 2020.07.27 18:08:09 +05'30'