Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shakeel Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2018

      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:
          MAIN SEAT AT JABALPUR

(DIVISION BENCH: HON. SHRI S.K. SETH AND
        HON. SHRI H.P. SINGH, JJ)

      Writ Petition No.6471 of 2016

Shakeel Khan
                                      ...Petitioner/s
               V E R S U S

State of M.P. and Others
                                  ...Respondent/s
Shri  Kabeer   Paul,           Advocate  for   the
petitioner.
Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Government Advocate
for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Pankaj Dubey, Advocate for the
respondent No.2/Lokayukt.

Whether approved for reporting -               Yes/No
Law Laid Down -
Significant Paragraphs -

                          O R D E R

th (28 day of March, 2018) PER SETH, J.

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging the Enquiry Reports (Annexure-P/1, Annexure-P/2 and Annexure-P/3) and set aside the proceedings against the petitioner based on the impugned Enquiry Reports.

::2::

2. Petitioner is a building material supplier. He was awarded a contract for construction of Rural Roads under Gram Panchayat Ratanpur, Block-Badi. It is alleged that without supplying the material, payment was received in connivance with the Secretary of Gram Panchayant Ratanpur, therefore, inquiry was instituted against Ramadhar Dhakad, Secretary of Gram Panchayat. Petitioner is, therefore, praying to quash Annexure-

P/1, Annexure-P/2 and Annexure-P/3. Incidently, it may be pointed out that none of these documents pertains to the petitioner, therefore, challenge to Annexure-P/1, Annexure-P/2 & Annexure-P/3 is misconceived. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an F.I.R. has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)

(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1989 and Sections 120-B, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the IPC. The Investigating Officer issued a notice to the petitioner on 06.03.2017 (Annexure- P/6). In response to Annexure-P/6, petitioner has submitted the reply which is available on record as Annexure-P/7. Since the crime has been registered and ::3::

matter is under investigation of the Lokayukt Police and there is no prayer to quash the notice. In our considered opinion, the entire petition is misconceived. It seems to be a shadow litigation on behalf of Ramadhar Dhakad, Secretary, Gram Panchayat Ratanpur, Block-Badi to pre-empt criminal case against him.

3. The law relating to quashing of the F.I.R./charges is well-settled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. Vs. Pirthi Chand reported in (1996) 2 SCC 37 wherein it has been held as under:-

"Great care should be taken by the High Court before the embarking to scrutinizes the FIR/charge-sheet/complaint. In deciding whether the case is rarest of rare cases to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, it first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute the offence. It must be remembered that FIR is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into cognizable offence. After the investigation is conducted (sic concluded) and the charge-sheet is laid, the ::4::

prosecution produces the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code in support of the charge- sheet. At that stage it is not the function of the Court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case or to consider necessity of strict compliance of the provisions which are considered mandatory and its effect of non-compliance. It would be done after the trial is concluded. The Court has to prima facie consider from the averments in the charge- sheet and the statements of witness on the record in support thereof whether Court could take cognizance of the offence, on that evidence and proceed further with the trial. If it reaches a conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out, no further act could be done except to quash the charge-

sheet. But only in exceptional cases, i.e., in rarest of rare cases of mala fide initiation of the proceedings to wreak private vengeance process of criminal is availed of in laying a complaint or FIR itself does not disclose at all any cognizable offence - the Court may embark upon the consideration thereof and exercise the power."

It was further held by their Lordships as under:-

::5::

"When Investigating Officer spends considerable time to collect the evidence and places the charge-sheet before the Court, further action should not be short- circuited by resorting to exercise inherent power to quash the charge-sheet. The social stability and order requires to be regulated by proceeding against the offender as it is an offence against the society as a whole. This cardinal principle should always be kept in mind before the embarking upon exercising inherent power. The accused involved in an economic offence destabilizes the economy and causes grave incursion on the economic planning of the State. When the legislature entrusts the power to the Police Officer to prevent organized commission of the offence or offences involving moral turpitude or crimes of grave nature and are entrusted with power to investigate into the crime in intractable terrains and secretive manner in concert, greater circumspection and care and caution should be borne in mind by the High Court when it exercises its inherent power. Otherwise, the social order and security would be put in jeopardy and grave risk. The accused will have field day in destabilizing ::6::

the economy of the State regulated under the relevant provisions."

4. From the material placed on record, we are satisfied that a prima facie case for taking cognizance has been made out and, therefore, at this stage in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we do not find it appropriate to interfere with the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner.

5. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the statement of law, we do not find any merit and substance in the present Writ Petition, therefore, the same being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed.

6. Ordered accordingly.

     (S.K. SETH)                            (H.P. SINGH)
      J U D G E                              J U D G E

@shish


Digitally signed by
ASHISH KUMAR JAIN
Date: 2018.03.31
10:50:21 +05'30'