Madhya Pradesh High Court
Banwari Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 July, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C No.34975/2021 (Banwari Singh Yadav versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Another) Gwalior, Dated: 15.7.2021 Through Video Conferencing.
Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Smt.Padamshri Agrawal, learned counsel for the State. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity "the Cr.P.C") has been filed for quashment of F.I.R. registered at Crime No.102/2020 for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "P.C.Act) by the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt) Gwalior and all other consequential proceedings.
It is the case of the applicant that he is working as a Compounder in Primary Health Centre Hastinapur, District Gwalior. A written compliant was made on 13.8.2020 by the non-applicant No.2 that the applicant is demanding Rs.5000/- for preparation of a false medical certificate. The applicant has made a representation to the Investigating Agency but no heed is being paid.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is merely working on the post of Compounder at Primary Health Centre Hastinapur, District Gwalior and is a low paid employee. He is not competent to prepare the M.L.C report or issue any such certificate. The allegation of demanding Rs.5000/- for preparation of a forged medical certificate is false and a cooked-up story. The F.I.R has been lodged resulting in abuse of the process of law and is a glaring example of malafide and malicious action against the applicant initiated with ulterior motive.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
2The applicant has filed copy of the F.I.R. lodged by the non-applicant No.2. According to the F.I.R, some quarrel had taken place between the applicant and the other persons on 3.8.2020 and the F.I.R was lodged at Police Station Hastinapur, District Gwalior. The complainant had sustained injury on his head. Thereafter, the opposite party also lodged the F.I.R against the complainant by causing self-inflicted injury with the help of a blade. The complainant as well as the opposite party were treated by the applicant. The applicant had demanded an amount of Rs.5000/- for preparation of M.L.C. The complaint gave an amount of Rs.2500/- on the same day and the remaining amount was being demanded by the applicant. Since the complainant was not inclined to pay more money to the applicant, therefore, he filed a complaint before the non-applicant No.1. The complainant was directed to record conversation of himself and the applicant. On 17.8.2020, another application was made by the complainant against the applicant alleging that he has got the conversation recorded and the applicant is demanding an amount of Rs.1500/- whereas the complainant has offered him Rs.1000/-. The transcript of the recorded conversation was prepared and the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 was issued and as the offence under Section 7 of the P.C.Act was prima facie found against the applicant, therefore, the F.I.R of the said offence was registered. Thereafter, it appears that the Investigating Officer directed the applicant to give the sample of his voice. However, instead of giving his consent, it appears that the applicant raised counter queries like for what purposes the sample of his voice is being collected and which proceeding is pending against him etc. In nutshell, the applicant refused to give sample of his voice and submitted his reply on 14.12.2020 with certain conditions.
3
The only question for consideration before this Court is as to whether this Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C can conduct a roving & meticulous enquiry into the allegations or not.
It is well established principle of law that if un-controverted allegations made in the complaint do not make out a prima facie offence only then the F.I.R can be quashed. In the F.I.R, it is specifically mentioned that the conversation of the applicant with the non-applicant No.2 was recorded and the transcript was prepared. It is also clear from the representation made by the applicant that he has refused to give the sample of his voice unconditionally. It appears that he has submitted his reply by putting certain conditions. Whether an adverse inference can be drawn against the applicant or not is to be considered by the prosecution and the Trial Court but for the purposes of this application, it is clear that if the allegations made in the F.I.R are taken on their face value then they do prima facie make out a case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Since no case is made out for interfering in the investigation, therefore, this application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge amit Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2021.07.19 12:32:40 +05'30'