Madhya Pradesh High Court
Udit Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 November, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 1850
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.16453/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Udit Singh
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
Mr. Anil Khare learned senior counsel, with Ms. Tanvi
Khare, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Ranjan Pandey learned Government Advocate
for the respondent.
Mr. Prashant Singh learned counsel for the Respondent
No.2.
Present: Atul Sreedharan J.
ORDER
(10/11/2020) The Petitioner seeks quash of the charge-sheet arising from Crime No.1306/2017 registered at Police Station Kolgawan, district Satna, on 29.12.2017, for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. FIR has been registered by the CSP Satna upon the statements made by Mrs. Rekha Singh, Wife of Yadvendra Singh Parihar, who is mother of the deceased and Mrs. Shyama Devi, who is grandmother of the deceased. From their statements, it was disclosed to the police that the deceased Mrs. Prerna Singh used to be assaulted and harassed by her husband Udit Singh, the Petitioner herein, for non-fulfilment of dowry demand and on 4.12.2017 in 2 the afternoon around 2:30 p.m., the deceased had gone with her mother Mrs. Rekha Singh to Sun Sign Hotel at Satna to attend a marriage function. At that time, it is alleged that there was a call on the mobile of Mrs. Rekha Singh from the Petitioner and she had handed over her phone to the deceased to speak with the Petitioner. The mother of the deceased further states that in the course of conversation, the deceased went to the terrace of the hotel and on account of the harassment by the Petitioner, jumped from the terrace and committed suicide. The mother of the deceased is Respondent No.2 herein. Post investigation, the police has filed its charge-sheet against the Petitioner on 11.3.2018. The police have charged him with offences punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the Petitioner on 12.12.2014. Between 12.12.2014 and 4.12.2017 (the date of incident), the Petitioner states that the deceased entered into an extra-marital relationship with one Prashant Singh. The fact about the illicit relationship came to be revealed to the Petitioner and the family members of the deceased and the contention of the Petitioner is that on account of guilt and fear of infamy, Mrs. Prerna Singh took the extreme step of ending her life by committing suicide.
3
3. The Petitioner further states that his marriage with the deceased was an arranged marriage which was solemnized with the consent of both the families and that there was never any demand of dowry by the Petitioner and neither did he receive any. It is further submitted by the Petitioner that after the marriage, the deceased stayed with the Petitioner for some days and went to her parental home at Satna, as per the prevalent traditions and customs. The Petitioner further states that he is an officer in the Indian Air Force and as such the deceased used to live more often than not, with her parents at Satna and that during the period of around three years of marriage, the deceased did not live with the Petitioner for more than three to four months.
4. The Petitioner further states that the deceased, after marriage, was pursuing her B. Com degree at Satna while living at her parental home. It is also stated that the Petitioner never objected to the deceased staying away from him and pursing her education. He further states that even when the deceased was living with the Petitioner, she was constantly engaged on her mobile phone, chatting on various social media platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp to name a few. He further states that the deceased showed very less interest in him and would frequently quarrel with the Petitioner to go back to her parental home time and again.
4
5. The Petitioner states that on 7.11.2017, when the deceased was living with the Petitioner in Saharanpur, the deceased used to speak to a lot of strangers and boys to which, whenever an objection was raised by the Petitioner, there would be a quarrel between the two.
6. The Petitioner further states that one day, he received a call on his mobile number 9340641811 and 9758273979 from one Pranshu Singh@Prashant Singh, who informed the Petitioner that he (Prashant Singh) is in a relationship with the deceased. The Petitioner initially ignored the call considering the same to be a hoax. He further states that the deceased was to attend a wedding in her relation on 25.11.2017 at Satna. But, however, the deceased was insisting to leave on 19.11.2017 itself. Due to the insistence of the deceased, the Petitioner is stated to have accompanied the deceased to Satna, after which he returned to Saharanpur. The Petitioner further states that it was only thereafter that the Petitioner received a call on his mobile number 9340641811 and 9758273979 from Prashant Singh from mobile no.8770888094 who told the Petitioner once again that the deceased was of easy virtue and was in a relationship with him. In order to establish his claim, Prashant Singh is stated to have sent the Petitioner numerous WhatsApp chats and photographs of prurient nature of the deceased, allegedly sent by the deceased to Prashant Singh.
5
7. The Petitioner is stated to have confronted the deceased with the WhatsApp chats and the photographs. The deceased allegedly admitted about the genuineness of the said photos and conversations. However, as the deceased had realized her mistake and accepted the same, the Petitioner advised the deceased not to indulge in such activities ever again. Thereafter, the deceased committed suicide on 4.12.2017 about which the Petitioner came to know at around 6:10 p.m. from one Abhiram Singh who informed him over phone.
8. After performing the last rites of the deceased, the Petitioner learnt through the local newspaper reports that the parents of the deceased had implicated him in a case of dowry harassment. The Petitioner, of course denies the said allegations and states that it was the Petitioner who constantly took care of the expenses of the deceased and used to deposit money in her bank account regularly, besides giving her cash. The Petitioner further states that he never objected to the deceased going frequently to her maternal home as he was genuinely under the impression that she was going there to pursue her studies. He further states that the parents and relatives of the deceased, despite having knowledge of her extra-marital affair with Prashant Singh and the exchange of indecent photographs with him, registered a false case against the Petitioner to 6 cover up the alleged indiscretions of the deceased, so that the family is not exposed to infamy in society.
9. The Petitioner states that he submitted a detailed representation dated 18.12.2017 giving the entire facts of the case to the SP and CSP, Satna, praying for a fair investigation into the case and necessary action be taken against Prashant Singh and others who may be involved. The said representations are cumulatively annexed to this petition as Annexure P/2 from pages 124 to 127. This court has seen the representations sent by the Petitioner where the Petitioner has stated what has already been observed herein above in the preceding paragraphs and brought the same to the notice of the police. The representations were sent to the police by post.
10. The Petitioner, apprehending his arrest in the case, filed an application for anticipatory bail, being M.Cr.C. No.4478/2018. During the course of arguments in the application for anticipatory bail, learned counsel for the Petitioner had brought to the notice of the court, the representations sent by the Petitioner to the CSP Satna by speed post. However, Ld. Counsel for the State had placed a report before this Court of the CSP Satna dated 13.2.2016 disclosing that he has not received any such communication from the Petitioner or his family members. Therefore, by order dated 20.2.2018 passed in the application for anticipatory bail, this court had given 7 interim protection to the Petitioner from arrest and had directed him to appear at the earliest before the Investigating Officer and place all such documents and material, including WhatsApp screen-shots and photographs relied upon by the Petitioner and also get his statement recorded and thereafter, listed the case on 5.3.2018 for further orders. The said order mentioned above has been filed by the Petitioner as Annexure P/3, which is at pages 130 and 131 of this petition. The Petitioner submits that pursuant to the interim protection, he visited the Office of the SP Satna to comply with the directions issued by this Court. However, the Petitioner states that the SP refused to accept and acknowledge the said documents and representations on account of which the Petitioner was constrained to file an affidavit before this Court on 8.3.2018 in the pending anticipatory bail application. A copy of the said affidavit has been filed along with this petition as Annexure P/6, which is at page140.
11. The case (for anticipatory bail) was once again listed on 5.3.2018. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had agreed to hand over his mobile phone containing the WhatsApp chats, to the SP Satna. This court had requested the SP to seize the mobile phone of the Petitioner and issue a receipt for the same. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that he had gone to give the entire set of documents to present his side 8 of the case to the Office of the CSP Satna, Mr. B. D. Pandey, who asked the Petitioner to hand over the documents to his reader. Reader of the CSP received the documents from the counsel for the Petitioner and gave a receipt but, however, did not affix the seal of the office. Therefore, this court once again directed the Petitioner to repeat the procedure and hand over the entire set of documents to the SP Satna along with the covering letter and the SP Satna was directed to give a proper receipt along with the seal of the Office of the SP Satna, to the Petitioner.
12. Pursuant to the order passed in the application for anticipatory bail dated 5.3.2018 by this Court, the Petitioner visited the Office of SP Satna requesting him to comply with the directions issued by this court vide order dated 5.3.2018. However, the Petitioner states that the SP Satna refused to accept the documents and acknowledge the same on account of which the Petitioner was constrained to file an affidavit dated 8.3.2018 before this court. A copy of that affidavit is Annexure P/6, which is annexed to this petition at page no.140.
13. This court has gone through the said affidavit and finds that in paragraph 2, the Petitioner has averred that he had gone to the Office of SP Satna on 7.3.2018 at 1:00 p.m. for complying with the directions given by this court. In paragraph 3, the Petitioner says categorically that the SP Satna refused to accept the documents by saying that he 9 has not received the court's order and, therefore, he will not accept the said documents. In paragraph 4, the Petitioner stated that he had handed over a copy of the order passed by this court to the SP Satna who, after reading the same, was of the opinion that the order was a direction to the Petitioner and not to him. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner states that the conduct of the police reveals that they were not willing to accept the documentation being made available by him so that the investigation could be unbiased and independent.
14. In short, the case of the Petitioner is that he has falsely been implicated by the Police based upon the complaint of the parents of the deceased. According to the Petitioner, the only reason why the deceased committed suicide was on account of the discovery of her promiscuous life style which involved relationships with several other men and having been confronted by the Petitioner in view of the evidence that has been mentioned hereinabove. The Petitioner has also stated that the outcome of the investigation has been skewed and biased as the Police never conducted a fair and impartial investigation into the case from the side of the Petitioner till such time that this Court had interceded and passed specific directions to the Police to take into account the version put forth by the Petitioner during the course of the hearing into the anticipatory bail application. The Petitioner has further stated that he has given documents 10 of unimpeachable quality to the State which has been examined by them and found the photographs to be true and untampered.
15. The learned counsel for the State has argued that it was not disputed that the deceased was in conversation with her husband on the phone on the date on which the incident took place. He further states that the nature of the conversation is not known and what it was that instigated the deceased to jump from the terrace of the hotel. He has further stated with much vehemence that the investigation was not conducted with malicious intent only to frame the Petitioner and that, it was done fairly, without any bias. The State has also not denied that the WhatsApp chats and photographs that were sent by the deceased to her alleged paramour Prashant, were in turn sent it to the Petitioner by Prashant Singh. The photographs were sent to the forensic science laboratory for verification and found to be true. He has further stated that the allegation relating to the demand of dowry and cruelty are prima facie substantiated by the 161 statements of the father, mother and the grandmother of the deceased.
16. As regards the case of the Petitioner, the learned counsel for the State submitted that the parallel hypothesis set up by the Petitioner is a matter pertaining to the merits of the case and the same must be established by way of a trial. He submits that the investigation into the case against the 11 Petitioner was bonafide and bereft of any bias as is established by the fact that the FSL report, which is in favour of the accused has been filed along with the charge sheet. The learned counsel for the State has not denied the intimacy and extramarital relationship between the deceased and her paramour Prashant Singh which are placed before this Court by way of the mobile call transcript, specifically from pages 212 to 217.
17. The Respondent No.2 has filed an application for vacation of the stay order passed by this Court, which is also her reply to quash petition. In paragraph 3 of the said reply, the Respondent No.2 has stated that her daughter had got married to the Petitioner on 12.12.2014 and thereafter there was a dowry demand and harassment by the Petitioner on account of which the deceased committed suicide. The Respondent No.2 has also stated that the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage and that only after narrating the harassment meted out to the deceased earlier by the Petitioner, did the Police register the present FIR against the Petitioner. As regards the allegation of the Petitioner that the charges against him are trumped up and only filed by the respondent in order to cover up the alleged love affair with another boy is concerned, the Respondent No.2 has stated that this contention is totally hypothetical, which has been made up by the Petitioner and that the same can only be decided by a Court of competent 12 jurisdiction during the course of trial. As regards the various documents that have been filed by the Petitioner, which also includes transcripts of various audio conversations and WhatsApp conversations between the deceased and her alleged paramour, the Respondent No.2 states that the same cannot be considered at this stage because at the stage of considering a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court cannot proceed or go beyond the charge sheet and the documents filed therewith. Reference is also been made to section 113-B of the Evidence Act to show the presumption of a dowry death where cruelty and harassment have been alleged in connection with a demand for dowry.
18. In the course of argument, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 has referred to the two judgments of the Supreme Court being Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and Ors., Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr - (2013) 11 SCC 476, with specific reference to paragraph 15, and State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Suresh Rajan and Ors - (2014) 11 SCC 709, with specific reference to paragraph 32.4. These shall be discussed by this Court later in this judgement.
19. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with the petition. It would be relevant to mention here that the documents put forth by the Petitioner, are undisputed by both the State and the Respondent No.2. The genuineness of these documents or 13 the photographs in question have not been questioned by the Respondents. Only a half-hearted plea has been taken by the Respondents that these documents can only be looked into at this stage of the trial.
20. The manner in which the police conducted the investigation initially was one sided. They had refused to hear the version of the Petitioner or even examine his documents. It was only after the intervention of this Court during the hearing of the anticipatory bail application, that the police reluctantly accepted the documents and photographs put forth by the Petitioner.
21. In Ankush Maruti Shinde The Supreme Court expressed its displeasure against the police for the manner in which it had investigated an offence in which several people were murdered and a woman raped in which, the accused persons, who were members of a nomadic tribe were falsely implicated while, the actual perpetrators of the crime who were identified by the witness's from the register at the police station, where never proceeded or investigated into. Underscoring the importance of a fair investigation, The Supreme Court held "It has to be uppermost kept in mind that impartial and truthful investigation is imperative. It is judiciously acknowledged that fair trial includes fair investigation as envisaged by Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The role of the 14 police is to be one for protection of life, liberty and property of citizens, that investigation of offences being one of its foremost duties. That the aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and to bring the offender to book"1. In the same judgment, The Supreme Court, relying upon an earlier judgment passed in V.K. Sasikala Vs. State - (2012) 9 SCC 771, Highlighted the importance of the police in examining the documents that maybe in support of the accused and held in the following words "As observed by this Court in V.K. Sasikala v. State [V.K. Sasikala v. State, (2012) 9 SCC 771 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1010] , though it is only such reports which support the prosecution case that are required to be forwarded to the Court under Section 173(5), in every situation where some of the seized papers and the documents do not support the prosecution case and, on the contrary, support the accused, a duty is cast on the investigating officer to evaluate the two sets of documents and materials collected and, if required, to exonerate the accused at that stage itself"2
22. In Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat, The Supreme Court examined a case arising from a fight between two groups in 1 Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra - (2019) 15 SCC 470, paragraph 10 at page 504 2 Ankush Maruti Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra - (2019) 15 SCC 470, paragraph 10.3 at page 505 15 which three people died. The police are alleged to have examined the case only from the standpoint of one, completely ignoring the defence of the other. Emphasising on the importance of a fair investigation, the Supreme Court held "The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive. It is also the duty of the investigating officer to conduct the investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and harassment to any of the accused. The investigating officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. The investigating officer "is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth". (Vide R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866 :
1960 Cri LJ 1239] , Jamuna Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [(1974) 3 SCC 774 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 250 : AIR 1974 SC 1822] , SCC at p. 780, para 11 and Mahmood v. State of U.P. [(1976) 1 SCC 542 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 72 : AIR 1976 SC 69] )"3. Further, in the same judgement Supreme Court held "Not only fair trial but 3Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat - (2010) 12 SCC 254, paragraph 32 at page 269 16 fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. The investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner. Where non-interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere. In such a situation, it may be in the interest of justice that independent agency chosen by the High Court makes a fresh investigation"4.
23. Thus, fair investigation by the police is an imperative facet inhering in Article 21. It is not an option but a constitutional mandate on the police that when it investigates, it must be done, not from the standpoint of the prosecution alone, but also from the point of view of the accused. It has to consider the defence put forth by the accused which if investigated fairly, may exonerate him.
The purpose of investigation is not to secure a conviction of the accused but to unearth the truth relating to the commission of an offence. A partisan investigation is a defective investigation which puts a question mark on the sanctity of the proceedings against the accused. If after taking the defence of the accused into consideration the 4Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat - (2010) 12 SCC 254, paragraph 45 at page 272 17 police is of the view that the accused is not the person who committed the offence, in such a situation he is to be exonerated and the case against him, closed. In the present case, the investigation was initially biased and one-sided. There was even reluctance on the part of the police to accept documents from the accused. Even after the police had received the prurient photographs of the deceased, it never carried out any investigation to examine the motive of the deceased to commit suicide and whether the reason put forth by the Petitioner was plausible. The police have merely taken the material given by the Petitioner and made the same a part of the chargesheet without conducting any investigation into the defence of the Petitioner. The police have merely recorded the statement of the immediate relations of the deceased and filed the chargesheet against the Petitioner. No investigation was conducted to a certain the veracity of the allegations against the Petitioner.
24. The forensic analysis report of the cyber cell is on page 107 and 108 of this petition. In this document, the cyber cell has given an opinion that the obscene photographs of the deceased, which were given to the Police by the Petitioner, have been examined and found to be genuine. The report also discloses that the photographs have not been tampered with. Under the circumstances, the cyber cell's report is in favour of the Petitioner and has clearly revealed that the objectionable photographs of the deceased given to 18 the Petitioner by Prashant, the alleged paramour of the deceased, have been verified and found to be genuine and not having undergone any kind of modification or tampering. As the said document is a part of the charge sheet, the same can safely be relied upon by this Court as a document of the prosecution. It is also relevant to mention here that this document has been referred to by the learned counsel for the State, who has submitted that the said document reveals that the investigation against the Petitioner been fair and unbiased as the said report has been filed along with the chargesheet.
25. This Court has also gone through the statement under section161 Cr.P.C. of the father, mother, and the grandmother of the deceased. As regards the demand for dowry, the statements reveal that the Petitioner allegedly wanted a car to be given to him. As regards this, the father of the deceased in his 161 statement has stated that he had proposed to the Petitioner that they would assist him in buying a small car and that half the instalment of the car, if purchased on loan, would be paid by the father of the deceased and half by the Petitioner. In this regard, this witness states that he had made a fixed deposit for Rs.90,000/- in the name of the deceased and given it to her.
26. A complete reading of the statements of the aforementioned three witnesses, even if accepted to be the gospel truth, reveal that the Petitioner had asked for a car and not for 19 cash and that the involvement of the father of the deceased was to the extent of assisting the Petitioner in purchasing the car whereby the father of the deceased would share half the cost and the other half would be borne by the Petitioner. Such an arrangement cannot be considered as a demand for dowry. In any marital relationship especially in India, the parents of the bride and the groom always try to assist the newlyweds to settle down by providing such creature comforts which would make their life easier. The proposal put forth by the father of the deceased is not an offer for dowry but more in the nature of a financial assistance being given to Petitioner, who was his son-in-law in order to enable him to purchase of a car.
27. As regards the allegation of physical assault by the Petitioner on the deceased on various occasions on account of the quarrels relating to the purchase of the car, the grandmother of the deceased says in her 161 statement that she had seen marks of beating on the body of the deceased and upon asking her how she received the same, the deceased is stated to have informed her grandmother that the marks were the result of an alleged assault by the Petitioner. Similar is the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. made by the Respondent No.2, who has also stated likewise with regard to the beatings given to the deceased allegedly by the Petitioner on account of non-fulfilment of the demand for a car. It is however pertinent to mention 20 here that neither did the parents of the deceased or the deceased herself, ever complain to any authority with regard to alleged physical assaults inflicted upon her by the Petitioner.
28. The Petitioner has also enclosed herewith transcripts of the audio conversation between the deceased and himself shortly before the incident. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the said transcripts reveal that the deceased had come to know about her alleged acts of indiscretion and infidelity and that she was in an intimate conversation with her paramour Prashant, with whom she had shared such photographs mentioned hereinabove. Those photographs, as stated earlier herein above, have been established to be genuine and un-tampered as per the report of the Cyber Cell. The transcripts of the conversations have not been accorded any kind of strenuous opposition either by the State or by the Respondent No.2, except for stating that these are all matters of trial. Under the circumstances, the said documents can be taken in as undisputed and documents of unimpeachable integrity.
29. As regards the judgments put forth by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, they relate to the approach to be adopted by the Courts at the stage of framing of charges. In short, the judgements are precedents for the proposition that at the stage of framing charges, the courts have to see 21 whether a prima facie case has been made out against the accused which raised a strong suspicion of him having committed the offence. The Supreme Court also lays down that at the state of framing charges the court does not expected to minutely sift through the evidence and conduct a trial. If a prima facie case is made out against the accused, then it is a case of for framing charges against the accused.
30. It goes without saying that the stage of framing charges the court does not have to minutely go through the evidence as though it were conducting a mini trial. However, it is trite law that at this stage of framing charges the court was not act as though it is a mere post office for the prosecution. Besides, the present case is under section 482 Cr.P.C where the prayer is for quashing the FIR in all proceedings arising therefrom.
31. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal -
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court has held that one of the grounds for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings are where, such proceedings are maliciously instituted with the aim of wrecking vengeance on the accused rather than disclose the genuine commission of an offence.
32. In State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi - (2005) 1 SCC 568, the Supreme Court has held that though at the stage of framing charges, the trial court cannot look into 22 documents beyond what has been filed by the police along with the charge sheet, the same does not preclude the High Court from looking into documents of unimpeachable integrity while exercising jurisdiction either under section 482 Cr.P.C or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
33. Having gone through all the material, it is apparent to this Court that the deceased committed suicide not on account of any demand for dowry by the Petitioner but more on account of her unfortunate acts of indiscretion with other men coming out into the open and to the knowledge of the Petitioner who confronted her with the same, as is apparent from the transcripts of the conversation between the deceased and the Petitioner. From the transcript of the conversation at page 274, it is clear that the marriage between the Petitioner and the deceased was in its final throes and that the Petitioner was trying to convince the deceased to agree to a divorce by mutual consent. The transcript remains unrebutted, both by the State and the Respondent No.2. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that the probable cause for the deceased committing suicide was an element of regret and also the fear that she may have to face social ostracism if the same came out into the open, and not the false allegation levelled against him regarding demand of dowry, appears to be true. Moreover, the records show that rather than demanding 23 dowry, the Petitioner has been depositing money into the bank account of the deceased at regular intervals.
34. Thus, the registration of the present case against the Petitioner appears to be an act of malice in order to wreck vengeance on the Petitioner for having confronted the deceased with her infidelity on account of which she committed suicide. The case against the Petitioner is squarely covered by category seven of the illustrative instances given in Bhajan Lal's case which empowers this Court to quash the FIR and the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner on the grounds of malice, holding the same to have been registered against the Petitioner only to wreck vengeance upon him. The documents that have been seen by this Court to arrive at this opinion are of such nature that are of unimpeachable quality and which have not been denied by the State or the Respondent No.2
35. Under the circumstances, this Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction holds the proceedings against the Petitioner to be an abuse of process and exercises jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashes the FIR against him being Crime No. 1306/17 registered at P.S. Kolgawan, District Satna along with all such proceedings arising therefrom.
Digitally signed by (Atul Sreedharan)
PRASHANT Judge SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2020.11.10 16:13:45 +05'30'