Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lallu @ Raees vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 August, 2017
Author: H.P. Singh
Bench: H.P. Singh
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR.
M.CR.C. 7670/2017
Lallu @ Raees & another.
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
PRESENT :
Hon'ble Shri Justice H.P. Singh, J.
Shri Hakim Khan, learned counsel with the petitioner.
Shri A.S. Pathak, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
(24.08.2017) By invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (in short ''the Code'') seeking quashment of F.I.R. registered vide Crime No.155/2017 at Police Station Aishbagh, Bhopal, District Bhopal (MP), for offences punishable under Sections 341, 386 & 506/34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case, in nutshell, are that on the date of incident i.e. 20.4.2017 at about 8:00 P.M., petitioner No.2 Irfan Ali stopped the complainant-Saiyed Azam Ali near Dilkusha Tapti Ground and abused him filthily. Thereafter, petitioner No.2 phoned petitioner No.1 Lallu @ Raees and asked the complainant to talk with petitioner No.1. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 demanded Rs.2.5 Lacs from the complainant and threatened him that if the demand is not fulfilled, he will kill him and or any of his family members. If he could not do this, one of his any son, 2 would do this. Thereafter, on the report of complainant, case was registered against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that just to harass the petitioners, false case has been registered against them for the aforesaid offences, because the petitioner No.1 has made a complaint against the complainant and his school and on his report a Criminal case No.0213/17 was registered. The wife of petitioner No.1 has also filed a Writ Petition No.15618/2013 and only due to that, a false report has been lodged by the complainant against the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that even if, prima facie FIR of complainant is accepted, then also no offence against the petitioners is made out. There is no evidence available on record to implicate the petitioners in the present case.
4. By refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent/State opposed the petition. He submits that prima facie the aforesaid offences is made out against the petitioners.
5. After giving careful consideration to the facts of the case, perusal of the documents available on record, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the averments made in the FIR, it appears that for the purpose of quashing the FIR, it is necessary to consider whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie make out an offence or not. It is not necessary to scrutinise the allegations for the purpose of deciding whether such allegations are likely to be upheld in the trial.
3Any action by way of quashing the FIR is an action to be taken at the threshold before evidence are led in support of the case. For quashing the FIR by way of action at the threshold, it is, therefore, necessary to consider whether on the face of the allegations, a criminal offence is constituted or not.
6. The the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court under the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation, but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (I) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law.
7. I have considered the arguments of learned counsdel for the parties and gone through the averments made in the FIR.
8. Considering the entire arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record as also the issue involved in the matter, this Court is of the considered view that prima facie case is 4 made out against the petitioners. The plea taken here can be taken before the trial Court.
9. In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, no interference in this case is warranted in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(H.P. SINGH)
ASHWANI JUDGE
PRAJAPATI
A.Praj.
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=482004, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=aa8f72857f3bf78e15d9574562da8 56998b54d5fd5155003ab17dbda73f06859, serialNumber=f487d5a6440348495cfc3dec9 5a81237144a3514db9c5688195627b992f5d c04, cn=ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2017.08.28 17:07:49 +05'30'