Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailendra Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 14th OF JULY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 27887 of 2021
Between:-
1. SHAILENDRA SINGH THAKUR S/O SHRI
VIRENDRA SINGH THAKUR , AGED ABOUT 45
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE 116,
DANGI STATE SEHORE DISTT. SEHORE(MP)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT SUDHA THAKUR W/O SHRI SHAILENDRA
SINGH THAKUR , AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE 116, DANGI
STATE SEHORE DISTT. SEHORE(MP) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DHARMENDRA PATEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL(MP) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE SEHORE DISTT.
SEHORE(MP) (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
KOTWALI P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT.-SEHORE(MP)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. RAGHUVEER SINGH BHARTI S/O SHRI SHYAM
LAL BHARTI KOLIPURA, DISTT-SEHORE(MP)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI LOKESH JAIN - PANEL LAWYER)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF
Date: 2022.07.18 18:24:03 IST
following:
2
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
Case diary perused.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR registered vide Crime No.852/2021 on 7.10.2021 at Police Station Kotwali, District Sehore for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 435, 506 and 34 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings.
Facts necessary for disposal of this application in short are that an FIR was lodged by the respondent No.4 to the effect that on 07/10/2021 at about 6 PM in the evening on the instructions of Seth Hemant Bais complainant had gone to cultivate the land of his aunty Geeta Thakur, r/o village Hasnabad along with tractor no.MP37 AB 7990. At the time of cultivating the land, fuel tank got empty, therefore, Seth Hemant Bais went to bring diesel. At that time petitioner no.1 Shailendra and petitioner no.2 Sudha came on the spot and started abusing the complainant with filthy language. When he tried to stop them petitioner no.1 took out a can containing petrol and spread it over the tractor whereas the petitioner no.2 lit the tractor on fire with the help of matchstick and then all of them started beating him with kicks and fists and threatened him that if he again enter into the field with tractor, then he would be killed. In the meanwhile, Hemant Bais came on the spot and extinguished the fire. However, the tractor sustained loss due to fire. On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered against these petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioner no.1 and Signature Not Verified petitioner no.2 are husband and wife. There is a dispute with regard to the same SAN Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2022.07.18 18:24:03 IST property, i.e. the agricultural land due to which some dispute took place and the 3 respondent no.4 filed a false complaint with regard to the petitioner's entering the same property only with the purpose of harassing the petitioners. The dispute was going on in respect of partition of the ancestral property for which the mother of the petitioner no.1 had filed an application under section 178 of the M.P.L.R.C. and the father of the petitioner no.1 has submitted an affidavit opposing the said partition during his lifetime. However, the Tahsildar vide order dated 12.8.2013 passed an order declaring the said land to be non- transferable. In view of the aforesaid, a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioners. On these grounds, the petitioners seek quashment of the FIR.
Per contra, counsel for the State has submitted that the proceedings are at the initial stage and even if the dispute is primarily of civil nature, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. Accordingly, it is submitted that the police has rightly registered the FIR. There is material in the case diary to show that the petitioners are involved in the crime. Even the medical report shows that the complainant have received injuries though may be of simple nature. The petitioners are already enlarged on bail, therefore, at this stage, the FIR cannot be quashed.
Counsel for the petitioners in order to buttress their contention submitted that dispute is predominantly of civil nature and, therefore, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to futile exercise. Learned counsel has relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of U.Dhar and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and others (AIR 2003 SC 974), M/s Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd. and others (AIR 2006 SC 2780), Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others (AIR 2008 SC Signature Not Verified SAN
251), Dalip Kaur and others Vs. Jagnar Singh and another (AIR 2009 SC Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2022.07.18 18:24:03 IST 3191), Chandran Ratnaswami Vs. K.C. Palaniswami (AIR 2013 SC 4 1952). He further submitted that the tendency of converting the civil cases into criminal cases should be discouraged and therefore, considering the fact that the present case is merely a case of land dispute, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.
The Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in (2009) 4 SCC 439 has held as under:-
"14. While saying so, we are not unmindful of the limitations of the court's power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is primarily for one either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The court at that stage would not embark upon appreciation of evidence. The Court shall moreover consider the materials on record as a whole. In Kamaladevi Agarwal vs. State of W.B. (2002) 1 SCC 555, this Court opined: (SCC pp. 559-60, para 7)". This Court has consistently held that the revisional or inherent powers of quashing the proceedings at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence. Disputed and controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction."
The Apex Court in B. Suresh Yadav vs. Sharifa Bee(2007) 13 SCC 107 opined as under:
"13. For the purpose of establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. In a case of this nature, it is permissible in law to consider the stand taken by a party in a pending civil litigation. We do not, however, mean to lay down a law that the liability of a person cannot be both civil and criminal at the same time. But when a stand has been taken in a complaint petition which is contrary to or inconsistent with the stand taken by him in a civil suit, it assumes significance. Had the fact as Signature Not Verified SAN purported to have been represented before us that the appellant herein got the said two rooms demolished and concealed the said fact at the Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2022.07.18 18:24:03 IST time of execution of the deed of sale, the matter might have been 5 different. As the deed of sale was executed on 30.9.2005 and the purported demolition took place on 29.9.2005, it was expected that t h e complainant/first respondent would come out with her real grievance in the written statement filed by her in the aforementioned suit. She, for reasons best known to her, did not choose to do so."
Recently in R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta (2008) 14 SCALE 85, this Court laid down the law in the following terms: (SCC p.523, paras 15-16) "15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are:
(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.
(2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.
(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.
In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, a question came up for consideration as to whether quashing of the FIR filed against the respondent Bhajan Lal for the offences under Section 161 &165 of IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was proper and legal. Reversing the order passed by the High Court, this Court explained the circumstances under which such power could be exercised. Apart from Signature Not Verified reiterating the earlier norms laid down by this Court, it was further explained that SAN Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2022.07.18 18:24:03 IST such power could be exercised where the allegations made in the FIR or 6 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 ground for proceeding against the accused. However, this Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill 1995 (6) SCC 194, held that "at the stage of quashing an FIR or complaint, the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein."
Keeping the aforesaid legal position with regard to the scope and powers of this Court, this Court is of the view that the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence and the allegations as made in the FIR do not suggest that they are predominantly of civil in nature and, therefore, as the ingredients of criminal law are also there in the FIR and the allegations, therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to quash the FIR. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE HS Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2022.07.18 18:24:03 IST