Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Manoj Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 January, 2024

Author: Pranay Verma

Bench: Pranay Verma

                                                             1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                               ON THE 3 rd OF JANUARY, 2024
                                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 46370 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           MANOJ SINGH S/O RAJ BAHADUR SINGH CHOUHAN,
                           AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHASKEEY
                           SEVAK  R/O:  11-C,  NARTH  GAADRA KHEDI,
                           RAGHUVANSHI   COLONY,   BANGANGA,   INDORE
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....APPLICANT
                           (BY SHRI SUNIL GUPTA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BANGANGA,
                           INDORE DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY MS. HARSHLATA SONI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission.

02. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner/accused for quashing the FIR No.1098/2022 registered at Police Station Banganga, District Indore for offences punishable under Sections 353, 34 and 332 of the IPC.

03. As per the prosecution, on 09.07.2022, the Police party from Khandwa came to Indore for arresting accused in a case namely Abhijit and Raghvendra Chouhan who was traced in his house. When he was being taken Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA NAGDEVE Signing time: 09-01-2024 14:29:33 2 he pushed Constable Gourishankar Sharma and tried to escape but was caught again. His brother Manoj Singh Chouhan the petitioner, a Sub Inspector also came and fought with the Police party by catching them and caused interference in Government work. He was told not to do so but he did not listen and caught the collar of the complainant P.R. Daabar, P.S. Khalva, District Khandwa and broke the buttons of his shirt. When Constable Jyoti was taking the video footage of the incident, she was also pushed by the petitioner who also tried to snatch her mobile. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged by the complainant for the allegation that the petitioner has caused obstructions in Government work.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. The neighbours of the petitioner have submitted separate affidavits in this petition to the effect that no incident as alleged ever took place. The petitioner has been in Government service for 25 years and no allegation has ever been levelled against him instead he has been rewarded on many occasions. No statement of any independent witness has been recorded by the prosecution and there is no independent witness even to the spot map. At the time of the incident, there was no information that the persons visiting the spot are Police officials. They were in plain clothes and had not shown their identity. The station in-charge Police Station Banganga has already reported to the Superintendent of Police on 11.07.2022 that had the Police officials of District Khandwa intimated the fact of them having arrived for the purpose of arresting an accused, the said incident would not have at all taken place. It is hence submitted that there is no material whatsoever available on record to proceed with against the petitioner in view of which the prosecution against him deserves to be quashed.

05. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that there is sufficient material available on record for proceeding with against the petitioner in view of which the petition deserves to be dismissed.

06. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary as well as the record.

07. In the FIR which has been lodged against the petitioner it has been categorically stated that when the Police party had reached the spot for arresting the brother of the petitioner, who is an accused in an offence, on being nabbed he tried to escape but was caught. Thereafter, the petitioner fought with the Police personnel and also caught the collar of shirt of the complainant as a result of which its buttons broke. He also fought with a lady Constable. It has been stated in the FIR that the petitioner was made aware that the complainant and the personnel accompanying him are Police officials despite which the petitioner continued with his acts. It is not the case of the prosecution that the entire incident occurred without the petitioner having any knowledge of the fact that the visiting party was a Police party. Having been apprised of the fact of the persons belonging to a Police party, any action of the petitioner thereafter would be deemed to have been done with the knowledge of the said fact. In such circumstances, the letter written by the Police Station In-charge, Police Station Banganga, District Indore to the S.P., District Indore is of no avail.

08. Only on the basis of affidavits of the neighbours to the effect that no incident as alleged ever took place, the story of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved in view of the specific material available on record against the petitioner. Only because the petitioner is a Police person, there cannot be any legal presumption that he would not give effect to the incident as alleged Signature Not Verified particularly when there is specific allegation of having him done the same.

Likewise, his service for past 25 years would also not raise presumption in his favour that the acts alleged against him could never have been done by him. From the material on record, there is prima facie evidence against the petitioner hence if no statement of any independent witness has been recorded it would not render the prosecution case as doubtful. So would be the position with respect to the absence of signatures of any independent witness on the spot map.

09. From the entire material available on record there prima facie appears to be sufficient material for proceeding with against the petitioner and it cannot be said that there is no material whatsoever for proceeding against him. The material on record if taken to be true at its face value prima facie points towards commission of an offence by the petitioner, in view of which the prosecution deserves to be proceeded with and cannot be quashed at this stage.

10. Thus, I do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not prejudice the Court below at any stage of the proceedings.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE Shilpa Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA NAGDEVE Signing time: 09-01-2024 14:29:33