Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar @ Raju Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 January, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 1291 of 2022
(RAJKUMAR @ RAJU PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 11-01-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Laxmi Chandra Chourasiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Swati Aseem George, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that vide document no.274/2021 he has filed typed copies of the documents in regard to which default has been pointed out by the Registry.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Rajkumar @ Raju Patel S/o Shri Hari Singh Patel, seeking quashing of the FIR dated 17.08.2021 registering case Crime No.265/2021 at Police Station Baheriya, District Sagar for offence under Sections 305, 376 of IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Dehati marg was registered on 26.07.2021 when Grand Daughter of the complainant died of hanging on 26.07.2021 at 04.00 a.m. at her own house using Saree. Thereafter investigation was carried out and applicant was arrested on 05.09.2021. He has been enlarged on bail on 13.12.2021 in M.Cr.C. No.58655/2021.
It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated and the suicide note which is mentioned on the hand of the deceased has not been investigated properly though she has clearly mentioned that she is bidding good bye from her relatives and has clearly mentioned that nothing should be said to him as he has not done anything. It is further submitted that offence under Sections 305, 376 of IPC are not made out and there is no material on record to substantiate Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.
It is submitted that though prosecution has investigated the call details but there is no transcription regarding the details of the talk which took place Signature Not Verified SAN between the deceased and the applicant and in fact deceased committed Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2022.01.20 16:04:56 IST 2 suicide on 26.07.2021 after 5 days of the incident.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State in her turn submits that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed and there is medical evidence that the minor deceased was subjected to rape and was coerced to commit suicide.
It is submitted that two vaginal slides were prepared from the posterior for semen analysis and as per DNA report Uninterpretable Y Chromosome STR DNA (Very Low male DNA) profile has been received.
It is submitted that, therefore, the matter needs to be examined in terms of oral evidence and it cannot be said that the applicant has been made accused without there being any material so to falsely implicate him. It is also submitted that there are call details available from the Mobile of the deceased and the accused which substantiate the case of the prosecution.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and taking into consideration, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, wherein parameters are as under :-
' (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case Signature Not Verified SAN against the accused.Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2022.01.20 16:04:56 IST 3
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or 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.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.' It is evident that none of the grounds as have been enumerated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.
Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 and M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315, are made out to call for interference in the matter of quashing of FIR and it cannot be said that a false and fabricated case has been prepared against the applicant requiring quashing of the FIR. As has been held in the case of M/s Neeharika (supra), once cognizable offence is made out, then it is the right of the Police to carry out the investigation and that right of the Police cannot be curtailed on the basis of misplaced sympathy.
Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, when there is no material to Signature Not Verified SAN show indulgence, the application fails and is dismissed.
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2022.01.20 16:04:56 IST 4(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Tabish Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2022.01.20 16:04:56 IST