Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raveesh Singh Bhadauria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 May, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 1716
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Sheel Nagu, Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
-( 1 )- MCRC No. 53110/2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
DIVISION BENCH
BEFORE: SHEEL NAGU
AND
RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Misc. Cri. Case No. 53110/2019
Raveesh Singh Bhadauria
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri V.K.Saxena, learned senior counsel with Shri Neerendra
Sharma, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rohit Mishra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1.
Shri Yash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(11.05.2020) Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava,J.:
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the FIR, charge sheet and its consequential proceeding, registered as Crime No. 304/2015 by Police Station, Special Police Establishment, District Bhopal, against the petitioner.
2. According to prosecution's case, relevant facts are that the petitioner is a citizen of India and handicapped person. One FIR in Crime No. 304/2015 has been registered, wherein it is specifically mentioned that when complainant Dilip Vyas met with Naib Tahsildar Raveesh Singh Bhadauria (petitioner herein) then petitioner told him to meet his peon Rajendra Singh. When complainant met with peon Rajendra Singh then Rajendra Singh (Peon) demanded Rs.1.00 lac as bribe for the disposal of mutation -( 2 )- MCRC No. 53110/2019 case pending before the petitioner. The complainant moved to the respondent No.1, then a trap was organized and on 14.7.2019 the peon Rajendra Singh was trapped. Then FIR was lodged and charge sheet was filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the name of the petitioner does not find place in the FIR but subsequently as per final report, only on the basis of conversation recorded between the complainant and peon Rajendra Singh the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. There was status quo order of the High Court, therefore, no demand or motive could be made/gathered in this case. No trap has been conducted against the petitioner. The petitioner was not caught in the trap, the peon was trapped and conversation of the peon itself reflects that the alleged offence has neither been committed by the present petitioner nor with his consent. There are various lacunaes in the investigation. This case against the petitioner has been manipulated to harass the public servant. Mandatory provision of Section 197 of CrPC has not been complied with. There is no direct evidence of intention against the petitioner. The entire story has been concocted against the petitioner merely because the petitioner had refused to come under pressure of respondent No.2, to transfer the lands in his name. There is no allegation in the case against the petitioner Naib Tahsildar with regard to any demand or its acceptance by the Naib Tahsildar. All the allegations and evidence available on record are against Rajendra Singh, peon of Naib Tahsildar. The peon of Naib Tahsildar assured the complainant that "Mein Kam Karwa Dunga". The overt act was done between Peon and the complainant. Demand and acceptance of bribe on behalf of Naib Tahsildar is not established. The status quo order of High Court is at page 69 of the petition, wherefrom it is clear that this Court has -( 3 )- MCRC No. 53110/2019 passed status quo order with regard to civil dispute relating to the instant case. In transcript available on record there is no evidence against the petitioner which implicates the petitioner in this case. Only peon Rajendra Singh has managed to get bribe in this case and, therefore, in conversation with the complainant, Peon had asked various questions relating to civil dispute. Hence, prayed to allow the present petition and quash the FIR, charge sheet and all other consequential proceedings against the petitioner.
4. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record.
6. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116], the Apex Court has held as under :-
"A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established :
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established.
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."-( 4 )- MCRC No. 53110/2019
15.3 These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheet of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
7. In Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors. [AIR 2000 SC 3275], Apex Court considered a large number of its earlier judgments to the effect that investigating agencies are guardians of the liberty of innocent citizens. Therefore, a heavy responsibility devolves on them of seeing that innocent persons are not charged on an irresponsible and false implication. There cannot be any kind of interference or influence on the investigating agency and no one should be put through the harassment of a criminal trial unless there are good and substantial reasons for holding it. Code of Criminal Procedure does not recognize private investigating agency, though there is no bar for any person to hire a private agency and get the matter investigated at his own risk and cost. But such an investigation cannot be treated as investigation made under law, nor can the evidence collected in such private investigation be presented by Public Prosecutor in any criminal trial. Therefore, the Apex court emphasized on independence of the investigating agency and deprecated any kind of interference observing as under:
"The above discussion was made for emphasising the need for official investigation to be totally extricated from any extraneous influence..... All complaints shall be investigated with equal alacrity and with equal fairness irrespective of the financial capacity of the person lodging the complaint. ....A vitiated investigation is the precursor for miscarriage of criminal justice."
8. In Siddhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 6 SCC 1], Apex Court has elaborately dealt with the requirement of fair investigation observing as under:-
-( 5 )- MCRC No. 53110/2019"...... The criminal justice administration system in India places human rights and dignity for human life at a much higher pedestal. In our jurisprudence an accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty, the alleged accused is entitled to fairness and true investigation and fair trial and the prosecution is expected to play balanced role in the trial of a crime. The investigation should be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure compliance with the basic rule of law. These are the fundamental canons of our criminal jurisprudence and they are quite in conformity with the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India....
It is not only the responsibility of the investigating agency but as well as that of the courts to ensure that investigation is fair and does not in any way hamper the freedom of an individual except in accordance with law. Equally enforceable canon of the criminal law is that the high responsibility lies upon the investigating agency not to conduct an investigation in tainted and unfair manner. The investigation should not prima facie be indicative of a biased mind and every effort should be made to bring the guilty to law as nobody stands above law dehors his position and influence in the society....
The Court is not to accept the report which is contra legem (sic) to conduct judicious and fair investigation....
The investigation should be conducted in a manner so as to draw a just balance between citizen's right under Articles 19 and 21 and expansive power of the police to make investigation....."
9. In State of Haryana V. Bhajanlal [AIR 1992 SC 604], the Apex Court has held as under :-
"105. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions -( 6 )- MCRC No. 53110/2019 relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose 265 the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
4. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient -( 7 )- MCRC No. 53110/2019 ground for proceeding against the accused;
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
10. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhu Limaye V. State of Maharashtra, [(1977) 4 SCC 551] as under:-
"The High Court possessed and possess the inherent powers to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do the real and the substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist.
At the outset the following principles may be noticed in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court which have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions:
(1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court otherwise to secure the ends of justice;
(3) That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code -( 8 )- MCRC No. 53110/2019 The inherent power under Section 482 is intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under the Code."
11. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Shrivastava [AIR 2006 SC 2872], the Apex Court held as under:-
"It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice."
12. The Apex Court in Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja [AIR 2003 SC 2612] has observed as under :-
"9. Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves inherent powers of the High Court and such a power can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The power can therefore be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings."
13. On the anvil of the aforesaid annunciation of law, if the facts of the case at hand are looked into then it is apparent that in the present case FIR has been got registered by Dilip Vyas in Crime No. 304/2015 against Rajendra Singh, peon of Tahsil Office, Pichhore, District Shivpuri. The name of the petitioner has not been mentioned in column No.7 of the FIR. In the FIR, it is mentioned as under :-
**mDr nksuksa izdj.kksa ds fudky ds fy;s tc og uk;c rglhynkj Jh joh'k HknkSfj;k ls feyk rks -( 9 )- MCRC No. 53110/2019 mUgksusa vius Hk`R; jktUnz flag ls feyus ds fy;s dgk tc og uk;c rglhynkj ds Hk`R; jktsUnz flag ls feyk rks mlus izdj.kksa ds fudky ds fy;s ,d isVh ¼,d yk[k :i;s½ fj'or dh ekax dhA*
14. Just above this fact, it is also mentioned in the FIR that the High Court had passed status quo order with regard to aforesaid cases which are mentioned in the FIR. It is also mentioned in the FIR at page 2 that as per direction of Lokayukta, complainant went to record conversation between him and accused. At that time, he did not meet with Raveesh Bhadoriya (petitioner). The peon Rajendra Singh told him that Naib Tahsildar has gone out and told that he will get done complainant's work from Naib Tahsildar and for that he (peon) demanded Rs.1.00 lac as bribe.
15. On perusal of the transcript, it is apparent that there is no demand by the petitioner in this case. The demand was made by the peon himself after asking various questions to the complainant to understand the case of complainant, which is apparent from the transcript record, which shows that initially as the peon was not assured, hence collected the status of the civil case before demanding bribe otherwise such questions would not have been asked by him. Moreover, in the transcript as well as FIR, the peon has specifically stated that "Mein Naib Tahsildar Se Kam Karwa Dunga". It is also on record of prosecution that the High Court had already passed status quo order with regard to civil dispute, therefore, no motive could be gathered against the petitioner. It is also evident from the prosecution case itself that the petitioner was neither trapped nor any recovery has been made from him. The trap was conducted against the peon Rajendra Singh and there is no evidence for constituting offence under Section 120-B of IPC also, which can connect the present petitioner in the case uner Section 120-B of IPC as well.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion -( 10 )- MCRC No. 53110/2019 that no case is made out against the petitioner. Hence, this petition under Section 482 of CrPC is hereby allowed. The FIR registered by Special Police Establishment, Bhopal as Crime No. 304/2015 as well as charge sheet filed against the petitioner under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of IPC, including all other consequential proceeding, so far as it relates to the present petitioner, are hereby quashed.
A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court concerned for information.
(Sheel Nagu) (Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
(yog) Judge Judge
YOGESH VERMA
2020.05.12
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00' 09:55:22 +05'30'