Pramod Ahirwar & Another vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Another

Mohd. Fahim Anwar, J

This Misc. Criminal Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioners for quashment of the FIR registered under Crime No.293/2018 at Police Station Bandri, District Sagar for the offence under Sections 376-D, 506 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 (2) (5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 5g/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The case of the prosecution is that, in the intervening night of 27/28.09.2018 at about 12:30 am when the prosecutrix, aged about 17 years 8 months and 5 days, was at her house situated at village Rajwans under the jurisdiction of Police Station Bandri, District Sagar, petitioners have entered into her house and committed forceful intercourse with her and after commission of the act, they have threatened her regarding her life and fled away from the spot. On the next morning, prosecutrix has narrated the incidence to her neighbor Chandabai. Later on, on 01.10.2018 when prosecutrix's father Raju Ahirwar has come then she narrated him the incidence; and thereafter, accompanied with him, she lodged the report at Police Station Bandri on 01.11.2018. On that basis, above mentioned crime has been registered against the appellants.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the FIR is not sustainable in the eye of law on the ground that the same has been lodged with a delay of 1½ months without having any plausible explanation. It is also contended that the petitioner no.1 and mother of the prosecutrix were appeared on 01.11.2018 before the Police Station Bandri; wherein their statements were recorded. The mother of the prosecutrix specifically stated that the prosecutrix had left the house on her own will and not interested to live with her father; hence, the father of the prosecutrix managed to implicate the petitioners in the false case. It is further contended that the continuation of the investigation pursuant to the FIR lodged shall be an abuse of process of law as the prosecutrix was not aware about the FIR lodged against the petitioners and subsequently in her statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure she has not alleged anything against the petitioners. On the contrary afterward she came to know about the lodging of FIR, she submitted representations to various authorities including Superintendent of Police, Sagar to the effect that she has not lodged any FIR against the petitioners. In Column No.8 of the FIR no plausible explanation has been mentioned for the delay in the FIR. There are many contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings thereto.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent no.1/State opposed the petition on the ground that prima-facie the petitioners have been found involved in commission of offence. In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to dismiss the petition.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has filed the affidavit with regard to the fact that the respondent no.2 does not want to continue with the proceedings against the petitioners.

Having heard the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is found that in the FIR there is specific averment with regard to commission of the offence by the petitioners. Hence, it appears prima-facie that sufficient material has been found against the petitioners to prosecute them for the aforesaid offence.

The scope of section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2014)7 SCC 215 extensively. The relevant paras are reproduced herein :-

"10. Before we deal with the respective contentions advanced on either side, we deem it appropriate to have a thorough look at Section 482 CrPC, which reads:

"482.Saving of inherent powers of High Court." Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C. makes it crystal clear that the object of exercise of power under this section is to prevent abuse of process of court and to secure ends of justice. There are no hard-and-fast rules that can be laid down for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an exception, but not a rule of law. It is no doubt true that there can be no straitjacket formula nor defined parameters to enable a court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The courts have to be very circumspect while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

This Court in Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615] has discussed at length about the scope and ambit while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC and how cautious and careful the approach of the courts should be. We deem it apt to extract the relevant portion from that judgment, which reads:

"Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather than a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as the rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgement of first information report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the court on a perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the complaint or charge-sheet on the face of it does not constitute or disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law. Frustrated litigants ought not to be indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness through a legal process and such an investigation ought not to be allowed to be continued since the same is opposed to the concept of justice, which is paramount."

This Court in a plethora of judgments has laid down the guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the courts under Section 482 CrPC. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] this Court has listed the categories of cases when the power under Section 482 can be exercised by the Court. These principles or the guidelines were reiterated by this Court in (1) CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], (2) Rajesh Bajajv. State (NCT of Delhi) [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401] and (3) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. This Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283] observed that:

The power under Section 482 of the Code should be used sparingly and with circumspection to prevent abuse of process of court, but not to stifle legitimate prosecution. There can be no two opinions on this, but, if it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuation of a prosecution would lead to abuse of process of court, the power under Section 482 of the Code must be exercised and proceedings must be quashed.

Also see Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand [(2012) 12 SCC 72 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 472] , SCC p. 95, para 43.

What emerges from the above judgments is that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima-facie establish the case. The courts have to see whether the continuation of the complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and whether continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage of justice or when the court comes to a conclusion that quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice, then the court can exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. While exercising the power under the provision, the courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in the complaint whether prima-facie discloses an offence or not, but it should not convert itself to that of a trial court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact."

In the backdrop of the legal position and the discussion of the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of this Court, this is not a fit case to quash the FIR or other proceedings. If it is done then it will amount to gross injustice to the complainant and will frustrate the object of section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioners may raise all the grounds taken by them before the trial Court at appropriate stage. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for interference in exercise of powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Petition being devoid of substance stands dismissed.