Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkaran Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2017
1 M. Cr. C. No. 8229/ 2015
(Ramkaran Singh & Others Vs. State of M.P. & Another)
10.01.2017
Shri Rajmani Bansal, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Harish Dixit, learned Government Advocate
for respondent No.1/ State.
This M.Cr.C. has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR dated 26.04.2015 registered at Police Station- Morar, District- Gwalior, in Crime No.254/2015 under Sections 420 and 406 of I.P.C. and all consequential criminal proceedings instituted on account of registration of aforesaid FIR.
The main ground which has been taken by learned counsel for the applicant is that earlier Hakim Singh had filed M.Cr.C. No.7141/2013 and in said case filed by Hakim Singh, an order was passed on 11.09.2013 by this Court directing the SHO, Police Station- Morar, that in case the applicant resubmits the application along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court and also a copy of the complaint/ application, the authority shall look into the matter and shall deal with the same in accordance with law. It was further directed that if any case is found proved against the culprits, then the SHO shall take necessary action against them expeditiously preferably within a period of three months.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that no inquiry was conducted and stood- away FIR was registered, which vitiates the proceedings and deserves to be quashed. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Dheeraj Kansana Vs. State of M.P. & Others as reported in 2015 2 M. Cr. C. No. 8229/ 2015 (Ramkaran Singh & Others Vs. State of M.P. & Another) CRLR (MP) 178.
Learned Government Advocate submits that in M.Cr.C. No.7141/2013 order was passed on 11.09.2013 and FIR was registered on 25.04.2015 after thorough investigation. The matter was handed-over to the ASI for investigation on 05.02.2014 and thereafter, upon investigation being made by said ASI and on his recommendations that prima-facie a cognizable offence is made-out under Sections 420/406 of I.P.C., FIR has been registered.
The judgment referred to by learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable inasmuch as in the case of Dheeraj Kansana (supra), no preliminary inquiry was made before registering the FIR though it was held to be necessary by this Court and therefore, FIR was quashed and SHO was directed to conduct a preliminary inquiry and if commission of cognizable offence is disclosed, then to initiate suitable proceedings.
In the present case, it is apparent that investigation had taken place and on such investigation/ preliminary inquiry, concerned SHO had found that offence under Sections 420/406 of I.P.C. is made-out, therefore, FIR has been registered, thus, the main limb of the petition that no preliminary inquiry was conducted, is not made-out from the record. Thus, the petition fails and is dismissed.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge @PK