Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sitaram Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2022
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
Bench: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
01
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-8745/2021
(Sitaram Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
Gwalior, Dated: 21.2.2022
Shri G.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K.Awasthi, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1/State.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered against him at police Station, Cantt. Distt. Guna, as Crime No.1248/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 294, 323 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(1) (w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, so also its consequential proceedings.
Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is resident of village Khejra, police Station Cantta and by profession he is an advocate. On the basis of complaint of respondent No.2 alleging that on 23.11.2020 she along with her husband had gone to the house of her sister-in-law and at about 5 pm she was walking in front of the house, at that juncture, petitioner Seetaram Yadav came and after catching hold of his hand with bad intention, tried to take her to his house, due to which bangles of her hands were broken and she received injury in her palm of left hand. Thereafter petitioner abused her on the name of caste. When complainant cried, her husband Dharmendra Yadav, Shishupal Yadav and Neetu Yadav came and on seeing them, petitioner went inside his house. After investigation, charge-sheet has 02 been filed.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case due to previous enmity. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copy of the FIRs bearing crime No.1152/2020 registered at police Guna, Guna for the offence punishable under Sections 457 of IPC and Crime No.1161/2020 registered at police Station, Guna, Guna, for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 352, 506, 34 of IPC lodged by Harnam Singh Yadav, father of the petitioner, and petitioner himself against Lalaram Yadav, Mohanpal Yadav, Girraj Yadav and Arvind Yadav. It is submitted that Lalaram and Mohan are close relative of respondent No.3-Dharmendra Yadav, husband of the complainant in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew attention of this Court to the FIR bearing Crime No.470/2018 registered at police Station Guna Kotwali lodged by father of the complainant regarding missing of his daughter. Thereafter, in the said case when statement of the complainant (respondent No.2) was recorded before the trial Court, she did not state anything against Dharmendra Yadav, accused in the said case. It is further submitted that apprehending his arrest petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.6481/2020 before this Court and the said Criminal Appeal has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 31.12.2020 in the light of the directions contained in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 with the 03 following directions:-
"(i) that, the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the appellant fails to cooperate in the investigation.
(ii) that, the appellant should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If that appellant cooperates in the investigation, then the occasion of his arrest should not arise. "
On the basis of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and prayed for quashing of the FIR.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that on the complaint of respondent No.2 aforesaid offence has been registered against the petitioner. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. Petitioner is absconding and not cooperating with the prosecution. He has been given notice under Section 41(a) of Cr.P.C. to present before the Court on 6.2.2021, but he remained absent. He is a habitual offender and four other criminal cases have been registered against him.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
On going through the case diary, it emerges out that allegations contained in the FIR prima facie constitute cognizable offence against the petitioner and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. At 04 this stage, veracity of the allegations contained in the FIR cannot be gone into.
Moreover, it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. CH. Bhaiyalal [AIR 1992 SC 604] that when allegations in complaint clearly constitute cognizable offence, then quashing of FIR is not justified. Similarly, in the case of State of Orissa and another vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo [(2006) 2 SCC 272], it has been observed that inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the High Courts should not embark upon an inquiry as to reliability of evidence to sustain the allegations, which is the function of the trial Court.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no substance in the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed.
(Deepak Kumar Agarwal) Judge ms/-
MADHU SOODAN PRASAD 2022.02.22 17:44:38 +05'00'