Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nitin Chouraha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 14th OF MARCH, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6879 of 2022
Between:-
NITIN CHOURAHA S/O SHRI MAHENDRA
CHOURAHA , AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB CIVIL WARD NO.7
DAMOH TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DAMOH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANISH DATT, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG
WITH SHRI MAYANK SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
KOTWALI DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VICTIM A S/O NOT MENTION OCCUPATION: NIL
NOT MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed on behalf of petitioner - Nitin Chouraha S/o Mahendra Chouraha seeking quashment of order taking cognizance dated 06.03.2021 passed by the Court of Smt. Ritika Mishra (Pathak), Judicial Magistrate First Class, Damoh, District Damoh (M.P.) in Complaint Case No.339/2021 whereby cognizance has been taken for an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and for quashing of the entire proceedings recorded vide Crime No.628/2018 for offence punishable under Sections 376, 417, 420, 294, 376(2)(n) and 506 of Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No.319/2021.
Brief facts of the present case are that on 23.01.2019 victim had filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the present petitioner - Nitin Chouraha and his Bua, Rajesh Chouraha, Mahendra Signature SAN Not Verified Chouraha, Ramavtar Chouraha and Shivam@Sonu Pandeya.
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHANAllegation of the complainant is that she is resident of Damoh and petitioner Date: 2022.03.24 17:32:46 IST 2 is her neighbour they had developed friendship and had fallen in love with each other thereafter in the name of marriage present petitioner established physical relationship with her as a result in April, 2018 complainant became pregnant. She had informed this fact to the petitioner then petitioner advised her to terminate the pregnancy and thereafter they will marry each other. Complainant consumed some medicines prescribed by the petitioner and suffered miscarriage. Petitioner refused to marry her and threatened her to commit suicide if she will make a complaint to the police.
In this backdrop, it is submitted that complainant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated, prosecutrix is major, there is a tacit consent of the prosecutrix. Thus, in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Maheshwar Tigga vs The State Of Jharkhand, (2020)10 SCC, 108 wherein emphasis is placed in para 20-21, so also in light of the law laid down in case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs The State Of Maharashtra & Another, (2019) 9 SCC, 608, it is submitted that petition be allowed and order dated 06.03.2021 taking cognizance in Complaint Case No.339/2021 for an offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, so also the proceedings recorded vide Crime No.628/2018 for offence punishable under Sections 376, 417, 420, 294, 376(2)(n) and 506 of Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No.319/2021 be quashed.
Shri Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate submits that this is not a fit case to quash the order taking cognizance inasmuch as at the stage of cognizance learned JMFC is only required to see presence of sufficient grounds of proceedings.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and material available on record, I am of the opinion the law is well settled that at the time of cognizance Magistrate has to merely form a opinion as to the sufficiency of grounds for proceedings against the accused persons. It has only to see that where a prima-facie case is made out or not. In case of National Insurance Company Ltd. & Others Vs. Narendra Kumar Jhanjhri, 1990 CriLJ 773, it is held that at this stage the defence of the accused is not the concern of the Court. It is only for the accused to appear and then put his defence 3 which is to be considered by the Court at the time of framing of the charge. It is held that the Court is not required to determine adequacy of the evidence or probability of the accused being guilty. Magistrate under the law at the stage of cognizance is not permitted to embark upon the meticulous examination of the evidence or material.
In case of Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal , AIR 2000 SC 522, it is held that there is no legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons. It is also settled principle of law that the standard to be adopted by the Magistrate in scrutinizing the evidence at the stage of section 203 and section 204 is not the same as the one which is to be kept in view at the stage of framing of charges. If the complaint contains allegations against the person and that is to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, then cognizance can be taken and process can be issued by the Magistrate.
In view of such facts when legal position is examined then the law is that complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. Similarly, a complaint may be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the Court where it appears that the criminal proceedings is found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm or where the allegations are absurd and inherently to the improbable. It is also held that the power to quash shall not, however, be used to stipple for scuttle a legitimate prosecution. A power should be used fairing and with abundant caution.
Thus, at this stage, there is no material to show that the allegations in the complaint even if accepted will prima facie not constitute any offence or that the complaint is filed with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance, therefore, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings especially when the law laid down in the case of Maheshwar Tigga (supra) and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra) were at the stage of judgment after evaluating all the prosecution evidence whereas in the present case prosecution evidence has yet not commenced, therefore, this petition is fails and is dismissed.
4(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Tabish