Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Sharma @ Anni vs State Of M.P on 9 December, 2014
1 M.Cr.C.924/2014
(Anil Sharma alias Anni Vs. State of M.P. & another)
09.12.2014
Ms. Monica Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mukund Bharadwaj, Public Prosecutor, for the
respondent/State.
Heard.
This is second petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner. FIR of Crime No.156/13 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Shivpuri, for the offence under Sections 353, 332, 436, 147, 149 IPC and read with Section 3 of the Destruction of Public Property (Prevention ) Act.
Briefly stated that FIR (Annexure A/2) in Crime No.156/13 was lodged on 4.3.2013 for the offence under Sections 353, 332, 436, 147, 149 IPC read with Section 3 of the Destruction of Public Property Prevention Act against Narendra Sikari, Vikas Parihar and about 500 persons at Kotwali, Shivpuri on the ground that a group of 500 miscreants came to the Kotwali premises and started destroying the seized vehicles and Police vehicles, motorcycles and they also damaged the other Government vehicles which were stationed at the Police Station. These persons did not heed to the request made by Constable Devendra Singh, Constable Sadhu Bhagat, Constable Ajay Tomar, Constable Shivraj Singh, Constable Kaushalendra Singh, Constable Sunil Jat, Constable Sonu Agrawal, Constable Laxmi 2 M.Cr.C.924/2014 Narayan, Constable Driver Kailash Narayan and entered into the Police Station. They also destroyed furnitures, windows- glasses etc. by pelting stones. Head Constable Shivraj Singh, Constable Kaushalendra, Constable Sunil Jat suffered injuries. These persons obstructed the public servants to perform their duties. They destroyed the Motorcycles No.MP 03-8474, No.MP07 MB-2942, No.33B-5192, No.MP33 MF-0652 and other motorcycles could not be identified as they are burnt beyond recognition. The miscreants also burnt Maruti 800 Car bearing No.MP 00-H-7047 and Auto Rickshaw No.MP 33T0312 which was seized in connection with Crime No.310/12 was also burnt. A unnumbered Maruti seized with Istigasa No.2 also burnt. Government vehicle No.MP 03-5640 and an Ambulance which was used for dial 108 having No.MB-4272, a seized vehicle Maruti No.MP07 BA 2315, Maruti Van No.MP33B-7137, Max R-100 MP 08 B-8109 and other vehicles stationed were also damaged. Other motorcycles No. MP 03-8475, No.MP07- MB-0562, No.MP07-KM-2692, No.MP33-MA-9338, No.MP 33- BA-3857, No.MP 08-N-0192, No.MP 07-MK-5073 and cycles seized in different crimes and TVS Star vehicle was burnt. Two persons were caught while breaking the furnitures named Narendra and Vikas. Subsequently during investigation certain other persons name also reflected in the Police statements. The name of the petitioner is also reflected as a culprit. Therefore, 3 M.Cr.C.924/2014 charge-sheet has been filed against Narendra, Vikas and six others including the petitioner Anni @ Anil Sharma.
The petitioner had earlier filed the first application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. which was registered as M.Cr.C.No. 7451/2013 which was withdrawn on 2nd December, 2013. No liberty has been granted to the petitioner to file the second petition.
The petitioner has submitted that his name was not reflected in the FIR but subsequently after six months in the statements of the witnesses, his name has been reflected. If the witnesses have identified the petitioner then why they did not name him at the time of writing the FIR. The FIR was lodged by Devendra Singh Chauhan, Head Constable, statements of Dilip Singh, Sunil, Shivraj Singh, Constable Sonu, Ajay Singh, Sadhu Bhagar, ASI Devendra Singh were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It is asserted that in the statement of witness Dilip Singh and Sunil recorded on 6.3.2013 do not reflect the name of petitioner Anni alias Anil Sharma. The other witnesses statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded after lapse of more than six months reflect the name of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner's name reflected in these statements at a later stage is after thought and the petitioner has been unnecessarily implicated in the case.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions and 4 M.Cr.C.924/2014 submitted that the two statements of the witnesses have been recorded as early as possible and in the FIR all the names of the accused persons could not be mentioned for the reason that there were 500 miscreants entered into the Police Station and the Police Station itself was the subject of the crime. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Pepsi Foods Ltd and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others reported at (1998) 5 SCC 749 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "A. Constitution of India--Arts.226 and 227-- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973--S.482-Quashing of criminal proceedings--Scope of High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of power under Arts.226 and 227 or S.482 CrPC--Nomenclature under which petition filed not relevant -Petition under Art.226 can be treated as one under Art.227 or S.482 CrPC-- Power of the court to discharge the accused at the stage of framing of charge or existence of remedy of appeal and revision not a bar to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.227 or 482 CrPC."
Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on Lakhwinder Sing and others Vs. State of Punjab reported as 2003 Cri.L.J.3058 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, "(A) Evidence (1 of 1872), S.3 - Eye witness -
Reliability - Three out 7 accused put on trial acquitted on finding of non participation in offence though allegation of participation was made by witness-- Shows that the witness is not wholly reliable -
5 M.Cr.C.924/2014Conviction cannot be based on his testimony alone"
As far as the citations of Lakhwinder Singh (supra) is concerned the veracity of the statement can be evaluated after completion of trial at the time of pronouncing judgment. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be held that the petitioner did not participate in the said crime.
As regarding the cse of Pepsi Food (supra), the law laid down is that, "No doubt the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him and still he must undergo the agony of a criminal trial".
Investigation has been completed. Charge-sheet has been filed. On perusal of the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.of four witnesses, it is shown that these witnesses have deposed the name of petitioner in their statements. The involvement of the petitioner in the crime is narrated by the witnesses. Only for the reason that there was delay in recording the statements can be considered at the stage of judgment after evaluating their evidence. At this stage, these statements cannot be disbelieved or discarded.
With these observations, it is found that the present petition 6 M.Cr.C.924/2014 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
(S.K. Palo)
mani Judge