Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Prasad Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2020
Author: Akhil Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Akhil Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-19957-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-19957-2019
(RAJESH PRASAD PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 29-01-2020
Shri Vidya Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.P.Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.1/State.
Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Heard on admission.
Case diary perused.
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of CrPC seeking quashment of proceedings of Crime No.158/2018 registered against the petitioner at Police Station Amarpatan, District-Satna for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 147, 294, 353, 332, 506, 427 and 336 of the IPC.
The prosecution story, in short, is that the petitioner is having an agricultural land bearing Khasara no.273 ad-measuring 4.97 acre in a village Madhi. On 30.03.2018, petitioner's standing crop field was caught fire by the sparkles from the friction of two electrical overhead lines on account of heavy storm. Many villagers informed about the incident to the Tahsildar Amarpatan. On receiving information, fire brigade was called on the spot and they were trying to control the fire. At that juncture, fire spread to other fields also and villagers started abusing complainant and the firemen for extinguishing the fire of other villagers' field first inspite of controlling fire of petitioner's filed. Thereafter, when villagers started assaulting the complainant and firemen, then petitioner called the police by dialing 100 to save the complainant from the clutches of the villagers. Due to assault by the villagers and abuse, the complainant lodged a complaint which has resulted into registration of the aforesaid crime no.158/2018 against number of persons including petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no offence has been committed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner Digitally signed by SMT SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 31/01/2020 02:54:53 2 MCRC-19957-2019 himself is a victim in this matter and as the fire has also caught in his agricultural field. The complainant has sworn an affidavit that nothing has been done by the present petitioner, instead he was helping him and called the 100 dial police van at the spot and the villagers have started pelting stones and maarpeet with the complainant and the other police personnel. It is further submitted that if all the material is taken on toto, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. There is no ingredients of Sections 341, 147, 294, 353, 332, 506, 427 and 336 of the IPC against the present petitioner. The petitioner tried for compensation as his crops were ensured, which were burnt in the alleged incident. Under such circumstances, prayer is made to quash the FIR proceedings of crime no.158/2018 lodged against the petitioner.
Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for quashment of FIR. It is further submitted that applicant has a right to raise the ground which can be taken in defence at the stage of defence during trial. At present court has to see only whether FIR discloses prima facie commission of aforesaid offence or not? Therefore, the petition has no substance and it be dismissed.
The scope of section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been discussed by the Apex court in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2014)7 SCC 215 extensively. The relevant paras are reproduced herein:-
10. Before we deal with the respective contentions advanced on either side, we deem it appropriate to have a thorough look at Section 482 CrPC, which reads:
"482.Saving of inherent powers 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.
A bare perusal of Section 482 CrPC makes it crystal clear that the object Digitally signed by SMT SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 31/01/2020 02:54:53 3 MCRC-19957-2019 of exercise of power under this section is to prevent abuse of process of court and to secure ends of justice. There are no hard-and-fast rules that can be laid down for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an exception, but not a rule of law. It is no doubt true that there can be no straitjacket formula nor defined parameters to enable a court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The courts have to be very circumspect while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
11. This Court in Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615] has discussed at length about the scope and ambit while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC and how cautious and careful the approach of the courts should be. We deem it apt to extract the relevant portion from that judgment, which reads: (SCC p. 272, para 2)
2. Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather than a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as the rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgement of first information report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the court on a perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the complaint or charge- sheet on the face of it does not constitute or disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law. Frustrated litigants ought not to be indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness through a legal process and such an investigation ought not to be allowed to be continued since the same is opposed to the concept of justice, which is paramount.Digitally signed by SMT SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 31/01/2020 02:54:53
4 MCRC-19957-2019
12. This Court in a plethora of judgments has laid down the guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the courts under Section 482 CrPC. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] this Court has listed the categories of cases when the power under Section 482 can be exercised by the Court. These principles or the guidelines were reiterated by this Court in (1) CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.
[(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045] , (2) Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401] and (3) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283] . This Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283] observed that:
The power under Section 482 of the Code should be used sparingly and with circumspection to prevent abuse of process of court, but not to stifle legitimate prosecution. There can be no two opinions on this, but, if it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuation of a prosecution would lead to abuse of process of court, the power under Section 482 of the Code must be exercised and proceedings must be quashed. Also see Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand [(2012) 12 SCC 72 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 472] , SCC p. 95, para 43.
13. What emerges from the above judgments is 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 in the complaint prima facie establish the case. The courts have to see whether the continuation of the complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and whether continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage of justice or when the court comes to a conclusion that quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice, then the court can exercise the power under Section 482 CrPC. While exercising the power under the provision, the courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in the complaint whether prima facie discloses an offence or not, but it should not convert itself to that of a Digitally signed by SMT SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 31/01/2020 02:54:53 5 MCRC-19957-2019 trial court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact."
Further, in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa reported in AIR 2002 SC 671 it is held that it would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceedings instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.
Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, in view of this Court, FIR discloses all the necessary ingredients constituting the prime facie offence under sections 341, 147, 294, 353, 332, 506, 427 and 336 of the IPC. Presently, the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true prospective without sufficient material yet no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. The grounds advanced in defence is required to be proved during trial. Whether FIR has been lodged with malafide intention will be tested only when the evidence is lead. Whether the complainant has made false allegation against the petitioner is a matter of evidence. At this stage, the allegations levelled against the applicant by the complainant thrown away at the threshold. Hence, the FIR and further proceedings cannot be quashed on the grounds raised by the applicant.
The Apex Court in the case of J.P. Sharma Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and others reported in (1986) 3 SCC 67 has held that if prima facie offences made out on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint without going into truth or otherwise of the allegations, High Court cannot exercise its Digitally signed by SMT SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 31/01/2020 02:54:53 6 MCRC-19957-2019 power under Section 482.
Considering the aforesaid legal positions and the material available on record, this petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerning court, P.S. Amarpatan, District Satna (M.P.) for information and compliance.
(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Sha Digitally signed by SMT SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 31/01/2020 02:54:53