Raghvendra Shukla vs State of M. P. & Ors.

This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.332/2011 registered by Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri for offence under Section 307 / 34 of IPC.

The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the applicant is working in the Police department and was posted in the Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri. On 02.04.2006, a FIR in Crime No.20/2006 was registered against Umrao Singh Bundela and Hemraj Nutt for offence under Section 307 / 34 of IPC. It was alleged that Rajveer Singh, ASI, Police Outpost Sunami, Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri was on patrolling along with the present applicant. An information was received from the informant that Umrao Singh Bundela and Hemraj Nutt who are dacoits have gone towards the sugarcane fields of Sumer Singh Rawat and Narayan Singh Rawat. When the police party at 6:30 PM reached on the spot, they noticed that three persons were trying to escape on a motorcycle and when they were asked to stop, they fired at the police party. In retaliation, the applicant also opened fire. Three persons were apprehended, out of which one person had got injured who disclosed his name as Hakim Singh Rawat and the other two persons disclosed their names as Maal Singh Rawat and Jitendra Singh Rawat. The police after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet against Umrao Singh Bundela and Hemraj Nutt under Section 299 of IPC as they could not be apprehended.

It appears that Hakim Singh Rawat made a complaint to the police authorities alleging that the applicant had tried to kill him by firing at him. It is submitted that an inquiry was conducted by the SDO (P), Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri who by its report dated 04.07.2006 gave a finding that Hakim Singh Rawat and others had in fact had gone to help Umrao Singh Bundela and Hemraj Nutt who are dacoits and reward has been announced and when the police authorities went on the spot to arrest the dacoits, at that time, during exchange of fire Hakim Singh Rawat got injured. It was further held by the SDO (P), Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri that Hakim Singh Rawat got injured by the gunshot fired by dacoits. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that inspite of the report submitted by the SDO (P), Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri, the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Zone, Gwalior vide letter dated 13.6.2011 directed the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri to register the criminal offence against the guilty persons. The Superintendent of Police, District Shivpuri in its turn by letter dated 20.06.2011 sought opinion from the District Prosecution Officer who by its letter dated 1.7.2011 opined that in view of the evidence collected during investigation, prima-facie, an offence under Section 307 / 34 of IPC is found to be committed by the applicant and another co-accused Rajveer Singh, ASI. Thus, it is submitted that under the direction of the superior officer, the police has registered the FIR in Crime No.332/2011.

It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that the FIR which has been registered against the applicant is nothing but a counter blast to the FIR which was registered by the police against Umrao Singh Bundela and Hemraj Nutt. The police party had gone to apprehend the dacoits persons and if during the exchange of fire if any injury is caused to an associate of dacoits then it cannot be said that the police personnels had committed any offence. It is further submitted that in case if the police personnels are compelled to face the criminal trial then it will demoralize the confidence of the police personnels.

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that in the present case, Hakim Singh Rawat is the person who had sustained gunshot injury. No charge-sheet was filed against him by the police. Thus, it is clear that Hakim Singh Rawat was an innocent person and had nothing to do with the movement of the dacoits. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that Hakim Singh Rawat had sustained injuries during exchange of gunshot fire. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that Hakim Singh Rawat had sustained gunshot injury by the gunshot fired by the dacoits, and hence, as the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offence, therefore, the police authorities has not committed any mistake in registering the crime against the applicant.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. From the case diary, it is clear that the police has not filed any charge-sheet against the injured Hakim Singh Rawat. The charge-sheet has been filed against Umrao Singh Bundela and Hemraj Nutt. If Hakim Singh Rawat was an associate of the dacoits or had gone there to help the dacoits then the police should have filed a charge-sheet against Hakim Singh Rawat also for offence punishable under Sections 212, 216-A of IPC. As no charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, it is clear that the police did not find anything against Hakim Singh Rawat to show that he in any manner was associated with the dacoits. Thus, it is clear that according to the police itself, Hakim Singh Rawat was an innocent person.

It is not the case of the prosecution that during the exchange of fire between the dacoits and the police, one innocent person got accidentally hurt. On the contrary in the FIR which was registered against Umrao Singh Bundela and Hemraj Nutt, it was specifically alleged that after noticing the police party, the complainant Hakim Singh Rawat and others tried to run away and as the dacoits had fired at the police party, therefore, the applicant also opened fire in retaliation. Thus, viewed from that angle, it cannot be said that Hakim Singh Rawat was accidentally hurt.

The next submission made by the counsel for the applicant that as the SDO (P), Karera, District Shivpuri has given a finding that Hakim Singh Rawat had suffered gunshot injury because of the gunshot fired by the dacoits is concerned, suffice it to say that the superior police officer did not accept the report submitted by SDO (P), Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri and the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Zone had directed the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri to prosecute the applicant and other accused persons for causing gunshot injuries to Hakim Singh Rawat, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the report submitted by the SDO (P), Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri is worth reliance.

It is next contended by the counsel for the applicant that the complainant had compromised his dispute with Rajveer Singh, ASI, therefore, the proceedings against Rajveer Singh, ASI, were quashed by this Court by order dated 27.02.2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No.8802/2011 and, therefore, the proceedings against the applicant be also quashed. The said order has been placed on record.

It is clear from the said order that as the complainant had resolved his dispute and had compromised with Rajveer Singh, therefore, on the basis of the compromise, the proceedings against Rajveer Singh, ASI, were quashed by this Court. Merely because the complainant has compromised with the co-accused, therefore, it cannot be said that the proceedings against the applicant are also liable to be quashed.

Undisputedly, according to the FIR which was lodged in Crime No.20/2006, it is clear that the gunshot was fired by the present applicant. When the police did not file any charge- sheet against Hakim Singh Rawat, then only one conclusion can be drawn that one innocent person was shot by the applicant, therefore, under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie material available against the applicant for his prosecution under Section 307 of IPC.

Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.