Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kuldeep Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 13 July, 2018
1
MCRC No.7094/2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.7094/2018
(Kuldeep Jatav & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr.)
Gwalior, Dated : 13.07.2018
Shri Avinash Kulshreshtha, Counsel for the applicants.
Shri Prakhar Dhengula, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent No.1/State.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.147/2017 registered
by Police Station Dimni, District Morena for offence under
Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present
application in short are that the complainant lodged a
report on 2.9.2017 at 1:30 that in the evening at about
7:00 PM he was going to Hanumanji Temple and when he
reached in front of the house of Ramnath Jatav/applicant
No.3, then applicant No.3 passed a comment that where
the impostor Pandit is going ? When the complainant
requested the applicant No.3 to talk him with dignity, then
all the three applicants started abusing the complainant.
When the complainant objected to their act, then the
applicant No.2 assaulted him by means of lathi which
landed on the upper portion of his forehead. When he
started shouting, then respondent No.2 came there in order
to save him. The applicant No.1 threw the respondent No.2
on the ground and started assaulting him by fists and
blows, as a result of which he too sustained injuries. On the
report made by Alha Sharma alias Shrinivas/complainant,
the police registered the offence under Sections 323, 294,
506, 34 of IPC.
2
MCRC No.7094/2018
Challenging the FIR lodged by Shrinivas/complainant,
it is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the
applicant No.3 has also lodged a cross FIR which has been
registered as Crime No.146/2017 at Police Station Dimni,
District Morena, according to which, there was a hot talk
between one Harendra Sharma and the son of applicant
No.3. At about 7:00 PM, the complainant was standing in
front of his house, at that time Harendra Sharma,
respondent No.2, Rinku Sharma, Alha Sharma @ Shrinivas
came there and started abusing him and scolded as to why
his son had a hot talk. When the applicant No.3 objected to
it, then Harendra Sharma started assaulting him by fists
and blows and the respondent No.2 assaulted him by
means of lathi, as a result of which he sustained injuries on
his head and back. When his wife tried to intervene in the
matter, then Rinku Sharma pushed her and Alha Sharma
and Rinku Sharma started pelting stones, as a result of
which the applicant No.3 and his wife sustained injuries. On
the report lodged by the applicant No.3, the police has
registered the offence under Sections 323, 294, 336, 506,
34 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that
in fact the applicants were abused and assaulted by the
complainant party and the complainant party was the
aggressor and by way of counterblast, the FIR in question
has been lodged by the complainant party which is
subsequent in time. It is further submitted that so far as
the injuries sustained by the respondent No.2 are
3
MCRC No.7094/2018
concerned, in fact they were sustained by him about three
months back in an accident and taking advantage of the
said old injuries, he has falsely implicated the applicants.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicants.
The first contention of the counsel for the applicants is
that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant against
them by way of counterblast to the FIR lodged by the
applicant No.3 and in fact it was the complainant who was
aggressor.
So far as the contention of the counsel for the
applicants that the FIR in question has been lodged by way
of a counterblast and in fact the complainant party was the
aggressor is concerned, it is a highly disputed question of
fact. In view of the counter FIRs, it is clear that an incident
did take place on 1.9.2017 and at about 7:00 PM in front of
the house of the applicant No.3 whether the incident was
triggered by the complainant party or it was triggered by
the applicants is a highly disputed question of fact which
cannot be decided while exercising powers under Section
482 of Cr.P.C.
It is well established principle of law that the
reliability, correctness and genuineness of the allegations
made in the FIR cannot be considered at this stage. This is
a question which is to be decided by the Trial Court after
recording the evidence.
The Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. K.M.
Sharan reported in (2008) 4 SCC 471 has held as
under:-
"31. At this stage, the High Court in
its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC
was not called upon to embark upon
4
MCRC No.7094/2018
the inquiry whether the allegations in
the FIR and the charge-sheet were
reliable or not and thereupon to
render definite finding about
truthfulness or veracity of the
allegations. These are matters which
can be examined only by the court
concerned after the entire material is
produced before it on a thorough
investigation and evidence is led.
32. In the impugned judgment,
according to the settled legal position,
the High Court ought to have critically
examined whether the allegations
made in the first information report
and the charge-sheet taken on their
face value and accepted in their
entirety would prima facie constitute
an offence for making out a case
against the accused (the respondent
herein)."
The Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v.
Ujjal Kumar Burdhan reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547 has
held as under :
"8. It is true that the inherent powers
vested in the High Court under Section
482 of the Code are very wide.
Nevertheless, inherent powers do not
confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the High
Court to act according to whims or
caprice. This extraordinary power has to
be exercised sparingly with
circumspection and as far as possible, for
extraordinary cases, where allegations in
the complaint or the first information
report, taken on its face value and
accepted in their entirety do not
constitute the offence alleged. It needs
little emphasis that unless a case of gross
abuse of power is made out against those
in charge of investigation, the High Court
should be loath to interfere at the
5
MCRC No.7094/2018
early/premature stage of investigation.
9. In State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar
Guha, emphasising that the Court will not
normally interfere with an investigation
and will permit the inquiry into the
alleged offence, to be completed, this
Court highlighted the necessity of a
proper investigation observing thus: (SCC
pp. 597-98, paras 65-66)
"65. ... An investigation is carried on for
the purpose of gathering necessary
materials for establishing and proving an
offence which is disclosed. When an
offence is disclosed, a proper
investigation in the interests of justice
becomes necessary to collect materials
for establishing the offence, and for
bringing the offender to book. In the
absence of a proper investigation in a
case where an offence is disclosed, the
offender may succeed in escaping from
the consequences and the offender may
go unpunished to the detriment of the
cause of justice and the society at large.
Justice requires that a person who
commits an offence has to be brought to
book and must be punished for the same.
If the court interferes with the proper
investigation in a case where an offence
has been disclosed, the offence will go
unpunished to the serious detriment of
the welfare of the society and the cause
of the justice suffers. It is on the basis of
this principle that the court normally does
not interfere with the investigation of a
case where an offence has been disclosed.
...
66. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. ... If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the court will normally not interfere with the 6 MCRC No.7094/2018 investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence."
(emphasis supplied)
10. On a similar issue under consideration, in Jeffrey J. Diermeier v. State of W.B.4, while explaining the scope and ambit of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code, one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) speaking for the Bench, has observed as follows:
(SCC p. 251, para 20) "20. ... The section itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Nevertheless, it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the court. Undoubtedly, the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but it is not unlimited. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the court exists. It needs little emphasis that the inherent jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The power exists to prevent abuse of authority and not to produce injustice."
Thus, it is clear that when the entire allegations are accepted on their face value, and if they do not disclose the commission of offence, only then this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings. It is well established principle of law that the legitimate prosecution should not be stiffled in the mid way.
7 MCRC No.7094/2018It is further contended by the counsel for the applicants that the injuries which are alleged to have been sustained by the respondent No.2 are concerned, in fact they are the old injuries which he had sustained in an accident which took place about three months back.
The copy of the MLC of the respondent No.2 has been placed on record. The duration of the injuries has been mentioned by the doctor in the MLC of the respondent No.2 and he has specifically mentioned that the injury No.1 is six hours old caused by hard and blunt object. Thus, in view of this observation made by the doctor in the MLC clearly establishes that the respondent No.2 had sustained the injury about six hours back. Thus, in the light of the MLC of the respondent No.2, it cannot be said that the respondent No.2 did not sustain any injury in the incident.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where the FIR in Crime No.147/2017 registered by Police Station Dimni, District Morena for offence under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC can be quashed.
Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.
Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR (G.S. Ahluwalia)Date: 2018.07.14 16:22:17 +05'30' (alok) Judge