AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.
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.Â
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 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:-
At this stage, the High Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC was not called upon to embark upon 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.
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 KumarBurdhan 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 early/premature stage of investigation.
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.
…
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 investigation into
the offence and will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence.â€
(emphasis supplied)
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.â€
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.
It 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.