Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhupendra Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 April, 2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
(SINGLE BENCH : HONâBLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P.GUPTA)
M.Cr.C. No. 2394 / 2016
Bhupendra Singh Yadav
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul
Sharma and Shri Pradeep Hazari, Advocates for the petitioner.
Shri Akhilesh Singh, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting : (Yes / No).
ORDER
(Delivered on 17th day of April, 2017) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of the FIR registered against him at Crime No.130/2015 in the Police Station Civil Line, Sagar, District Sagar, for the offence under Sections 341 and 384 of the IPC.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 3.11.2015 the petitioner was posted as Constable No. 780 in the police station Civil Line, Sagar, District Sagar and he was deputed to perform his duty in Dial-100 FRV No.MP04-6246. On the aforesaid date, without getting any instructions from Dial 100, he along with driver of the said FRV No.MP04-6246 had gone to Bamhori Tiraha and stopped two dumpers bearing registration no. MP05-G728 and MP05-G6804 on the road and checked them and found that sand was loaded in those dumpers. The petitioner showed his terror over the drivers of the said dumpers and illegally demanded Rs.5000/- from each of the drivers of the dumpers by showing fear to arrest the drivers and to seize the vehicles for committing offence of illegally transporting mining product sand. On the report of the drivers of the said dumpers, Gyan Singh and Amar Singh, an FIR was registered against the petitioner at Crime No.130/15 for the offence under Sections 341 and 384 of the IPC.
3. On perusal of the case diary it is also found that after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed showing the petitioner absconding and learned JMFC, Sagar has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 341 and 384 of the IPC by registering case no. 4704212/16.
4. This petition has been filed on the ground that the FIR is false and fabricated. The numbers of the dumpers mentioned in the FIR do not tally with the numbers mentioned in the termination order dated 3.11.2015 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sagar against the petitioner on account of aforesaid alleged act and it has been wrongly mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner had taken FRV without any call from the Control Room, Bhopal. Whereas, the fact is that the message was received from Control Room, Bhopal on 3.11.2015 at about 3.00 AM to the effect that the petitioner was directed to take FRV No. MP04-6246 Dial-100 on patrolling at the instance of TI Gopalganj, Sagar and ASI, Civil Line, Sagar along with the driver of the said FRV i.e. Kasim Khan and this message is available on the record of screen of computer installed in FRV itself along with Event ID and on the aforesaid direction, he went to the spot concerned and returned on his duty at the Point beneath Hotel, Sangam at 6.00 AM and did not do the aforesaid alleged act and the witnesses had never said anything against him. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the offence. Hence, the FIR be quashed. However, it has been orally prayed that as now the charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken, hence, further proceedings be also quashed.
5. Learned PL has opposed the petition stating that the factual controversy cannot be considered at this moment. FIR and the outcome of the investigation, prima facie disclose the ingredients with regard to commission of the aforesaid offences. Hence, the petition be dismissed.
6. Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, in view of this court, considering the contents of the FIR and investigation, no offence under sections 341 and 384 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner was directed or not to reach on the alleged spot is controversial as at present on record there is nothing to decide the aforesaid fact on the basis of unimpeachable material. Even then, being a Police constable, during his duty if he got any information to reach at any spot / place with a view to prevent any crime or to catch hold the culprits, his action cannot be made questionable merely on the ground that he was not directed to reach on the spot. As per the allegation, the complainants were stopped while they were transporting sand through dumpers illegally and they were threatened that if they wanted to avoid their arrest or seizure of the dumpers, they would have to pay Rs.5000/- each and also received the amount. The aforesaid act of the petitioner does not come within the purview of Sections 341 and 384 of the IPC.
7. In this regard, it would be appropriate to quote the relevant provisions here as follows :-
339. Wrongful restraint.âWhoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
(Exception) âThe obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section.
341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.âWhoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
383. Extortion.âWhoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonÂestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits âextorÂtionâ.
384. Punishment for extortion.âWhoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
79. Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believÂing himself justified, by law.âNothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.
44. âInjuryâ.âThe word âinjuryâ denotes any harm whatever illeÂgally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or properÂty.
8. The aforesaid legal provisions make it clear that if any person or officer with a view to prevent crime or chase criminal is restrained or stopped him from going ahead, such act does not come within the purview of Section 341 of the IPC. Otherwise, no police officer or any other person can arrest or chase any person from proceeding in any direction.
9. Similarly saying or threatening of any person who is involved in the crime concerned that if he is not paid money, he will be arrested or the property will be seized by a public servant like police constable, it cannot be said that he caused fear to the complainant to cause injury and thereby dishonestly induced the person to deliver any money as definition of injury denotes any harm which may illegally cause to any person in body, mind, reputation or property on the basis of saying that the person be arrested or property be seized as he has committed crime, cannot be said to be a harm to intentionally put the person in fear of any injury as it is not a case of the prosecution or the complainant that they were transporting sand validly or legally without committing any offence. Therefore, the act of the petitioner does not come within the purview of extortion.
10. The Apex court in the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. V. Biological E. Ltd. (2000) 3 SCC 269, has discussed at length about the scope and ambit while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The relevant para 2 of the judgment is quoted as follows :-
â2. 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 paramountâ.
11. In view of the aforesaid legal backdrop and in view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that there is no ingredient in the FIR or outcome of the investigation to prosecute the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 384 of the IPC. However, the averments of the FIR categorically disclose the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act but the investigation has not been carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the order of taking cognizance against the petitioner and the procedure of the investigation are bad in law. Hence, the proceeding of the prosecution against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 341 and 384 of the IPC is quashed. However, it is made clear that the prosecution is free to take action against the petitioner with regard to the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as per the provisions of law on the basis of the aforesaid FIR.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court below as well as to the police station concerned for information and compliance.
(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE JP