Rituraj Ragi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 July, 2023

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rituraj Ragi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 July, 2023

Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney

Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney

                                1
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
                     ON THE 18 th OF JULY, 2023
              MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2500 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
RITURAJ RAGI S/O DR. SURESH RAGI, AGED ABOUT 51
YEARS, R/O BEHIND SARA HOTEL, KUSHMODA, ARJUN
NAGAR, GUNA CANTT , DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                           .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AMIL LAHOTI AND SHRI DIVAKAR VYAS- ADVOCATES )

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
      BAMORI, DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    JAGDISH S/O MOHAN PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 59
      Y E A R S , OCCUPATION:     AGRICULTURIST
      RESIDENT OF BAMORI PRESENTLY RESIDENTS
      OF VILLAGE FARIDUA UPRAITI POST SAMRANIYA
      TAHSIL SHAHBAD BARAN DISTRICT BARAN
      (RAJASTHAN)

3.    SIYA BAI W/O LATE SHRI MOHAN PRASAD, AGED
      ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BAMORI
      PRESENTLY RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE FARIDUA
      UPR AITI POST SAMRANIYA TAHSIL SHAHBAD
      BARAN DISTRICT BARAN (RAJASTHAN)

4.    SUMITRA BAI D/O MOHAN PRASAD, AGED ABOUT
      61 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BAMORI PRESENTLY
      RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE FARIDUA UPRAITI POST
      SAMRANIYA TAHSIL SHAHBAD BARAN DISTRICT
      BARAN (RAJASTHAN)

                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA - PP )

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                                     2
following:
                                     ORDER

Instant petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of charge-sheet dated 8/7/2021 filed in relation to Crime No. 182/2019 registered by Police Station Bamori, District Guna for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.

2 . It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that on filing a private complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by respondents no. 2 to 4, the FIR was registered as aforesaid, Investigation was carried out and charge- sheet was filed accordingly. It is further submitted that petitioner was not posted as Patwari at the relevant point of time. No forgery has been committed.

If any wrong entry has been made then respondents have remedy of correction in the same under the MPLRC. There is no evidence available on record to show that false documents have been prepared.

3. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that it can be a case of false case and thereafter registration of FIR and filing of charge- sheet; however, to prove his respective innocence, trial is necessary. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Heard.

5. From the pleadings, it appears that the grounds raised by petitioner to prove his part of innocence, can only be pleaded and proved by leading evidence and thus the grounds as tried to be raised is matter of evidence and can only be tested on the anvil of cross-examination of the witnesses. Further as submitted trial is in progress and petitioner can raise all the grounds as raised in this petition at an appropriate stage in his defence. Merely by referring that petitioner has been falsely implicated, no conclusion can be drawn pre-empting 3 the controversy. Best way to reach the truth is trial; wherein, cross-examination would bring forth the exact facts.

6. Scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is very limited and it cannot be exercised sparingly under the extraordinary jurisdiction. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., 2015 Cr.L.J. (SC) 2031 has held that quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. When the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at the initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents on records but is an opinion formed prima facie.

7. The petitioner has been made accused on the order of trial Court and therefore, same cannot be said to be without any basis. The allegation made against the petitioner do prima facie make out an offence as referred above. Further in the case in hand, trial is in progress and therefore, petitioner may plead his part of innocence by leading evidence oral as well as documentary in accordance with law. At this stage no indulgence can be shown, case has to be seen on its own merits.

8. Cumulatively, petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY) JUDGE JPS/-

JAI Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, PRAKASH postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179ce c865c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a, pseudonym=560BC50AD082B9BE54EE290EC 8CB2193780D8357, SOLANKI serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8 072A2D8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8D E6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2023.07.20 10:37:28 +05'30'

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court