Immu @ Prabhat @ Imran vs The state of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The present petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashment of the charge sheet filed on the basis of the FIR registered vide Crime No. 123/2011 at Police Station Kundipura District Chhindwara for the offence u/s 379 of IPC.

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 25.4.2011 the complainant Paran Sharma had lodged an FIR to the effect that his truck was stolen. The truck was recovered from one Shiv Kumar. The accused Shiv Kumar had stated in his memo u/s 27 of the Evidence Act that the applicant sent Shahabuddin with a sum of Rs. 700/- that Shiv Kumar had to take the truck standing at a Dhaba, Pindarai and thereafter he had to contact with the applicant. The accused Shiv Kumar also gave the mobile number which was provided to him by Shahabuddin, and therefore the applicant was also made as an accused in the case.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no ocular evidence against the applicant. No stolen property has been seized from the applicant, and therefore there is no prima facie evidence against the applicant. If an accused says something which falls within the category of confession, then a little portion of that confession is admissible in the case upto the extent of the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act otherwise which is inadmissible u/s 24 of the Evidence Act. After recording the evidence given by the accused Shiv Kumar neither any verification was made that the given mobile number was of the applicant nor the statement of Shahabuddin was recorded that he gave a sum of Rs. 700/- and keys of the truck to the accused Shiv Kumar. Under such circumstances, the statement given by the accused Shiv Kumar is totally inadmissible. If the statement given by the co-accused Shiv Kumar is deleted, then nothing remains against the present applicant. Therefore, it is prayed that the proceeding u/s 379 of IPC against the present applicant may be quashed.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that there is no evidence against the present applicant as such. The memo of the accused Shiv Kumar u/s 27 of the Evidence Act is not admissible, because the Investigating Officer did not verify as to whether the given mobile number is of the present applicant and mobile phone was of the present applicant. Under such circumstances, the police could not connect the present applicant with the alleged crime. It is a fit case in which inherent power u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. may be invoked.

Consequently, the present petition filed by the applicant u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The criminal proceeding against the applicant relating to Crime No. 123/2011 registered at police station Kundipura District Chhindwara is hereby set aside. The name of the present applicant be deleted from the array of the accused from the trial relating to the aforesaid crime. A copy of this order be sent to the SHO concerned for information and compliance with a direction that the copy of this order be also submitted to the trial Court.