Phoolan Devi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

D.K. Paliwal, J.—Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR at crime No. 561/2014 under Section 306/34 of IPC registered at Police Station-Ambah, District-Morena as well as the charge-sheet and entire proceedings pending before the Court below.

The facts of the case are that Satendra Singh has informed the police that his Uncle/Lal Bahadur after taking meal sleeping. At about 04.00 AM, he was alive, at about 07.00 AM son of the informant went to the house of Lal Bahadur and thereafter informed the informant that Lal Bahadur has committed suicide and died. Merg intimation No. 62/2014 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. During investigation it was found that prior to the incident Phoolan Devi, Dulari Devi, Manoj Singh and Rinku were harassing the deceased and also given maar-peet. On account of this Lal Bahadur committed suicide, hence the offence was registered under Section 306/34 of IPC. After due investigation charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of JMFC, Ambah.

It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that prima facie no case is made out against the applicants under Section 306/34 of IPC. It is submitted that there is no evidence with regard to abatement to the deceased to commit suicide on the part of the applicants, therefore, FIR registered against the applicants deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that material collected during investigation also does not disclose the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC, hence prosecution of the applicants tantamounts to abuse of process of law, thus it is prayed that entire proceedings also liable to be quashed. In support of his submission learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the following decisions :--

"(i) Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 1998 : (2002) CriLJ 2796 : (2002) 1 DMC 773 : (2002) 1 JT 248 Supp : (2002) 4 SCALE 270 : (2002) 5 SCC 371 : (2002) 3 SCR 668 : (2002) 1 UJ 769 : (2002) AIRSCW 2035 : (2002) 3 Supreme 650 .

(ii) Ramesh Kumar v. Ramesh Kumar 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088.

(iii) State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359 : (2005) 99 CLT 348 : (2005) 1 CTC 134 : (2004) 10 JT 303 : (2004) 10 SCALE 50 : (2005) 1 SCC 568 : (2004) AIRSCW 6813 : (2004) 8 Supreme 568 .

(iv) Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, AIR 2008 SC 251 : (2007) 5 CTC 614 : (2007) 11 JT 499 : (2007) 12 SCALE 15 : (2007) 10 SCR 847 : (2007) AIRSCW 6659 .

(v) Ramchandra Kushvaha Vs. State of M.P., (2009) 2 MPLJ 147 ."

Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the non-applicant No. 1/State has submitted that prima facie there is no sufficient material against the applicants regarding abatement to commit suicide, hence at this stage when investigating agency has submitted the charge-sheet the inherent power could not be exercised, thus prayed for dismissal of this petition.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and carefully perused the documents. FIR reveals that on the basis of information of death of Lal Bahadur merg intimation was recorded and during inquiry it was found that applicants gave beating and harassed the deceased, on account of that deceased committed suicide.

In the matter of R. Kalyani Vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, (2009) CLT 272 : (2008) 12 JT 279 : (2009) 1 SCC 516 , the Hon''ble Apex Court after examining the catena of cases laid down following propositions of law with regard to exercise of extraordinary powers under section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure :--

"15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are:

(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.

(2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.

(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.

(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue."

In the instant case as already noticed that after due investigation the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners. The FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, AIR 1991 SC 1260 : (1991) 2 CompLJ 197 : (1991) CriLJ 1438 : (1991) 2 Crimes 113 : (1991) 2 JT 147 : (1992) 1 SCC 222 Supp : (1991) 2 SCR 1 , has observed in para 33 as under:--

"We are of the considered view that at a stage when the police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. has been forwarded to the Magistrate after completion of the investigation and the material collected by the Investigating Officer is under the gaze of judicial scrutiny, the High Court would do well to discipline itself not to undertake quashing proceedings at the stage in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction."

In R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : (1960) CriLJ 1239 : (1960) 3 SCR 388 , M.L. Sethi has lodged FIR against R.P. Kapur alleging that he and his mother-in-law has committed offences under Sections 420/109, 114 and 120-B of IPC, R.P. Kapur moved the Punjab High Court under Section 561-A of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings initiated by the FIR. When the petition of R.P. Kapur was pending in the High Court, the police report was submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the High Court held that no case had been made out for quashing the proceedings under Section 561-A of Cr.P.C. and dismissed the petition. R.P. Kapur carried an appeal by way of special leave to Apex Court while dismissing the appeal Apex Court observed as under :--

"6...... In the present case the Magistrate before whom the police report has been filed under Section 173 of the Code has yet not applied his mind to the merits of the said report and it may be assumed in favour of the appellant that his request for the quashing of the proceedings is not well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage."

Taking into consideration the aforesaid legal position no case is made out for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at this stage to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. Consequently, this applicant is dismissed. The applicants are at liberty to raise all the pleas before the trial Court at an appropriate stage.

Accordingly, this application is disposed of.