Rahul Parashar and Others vs State of M.P. and Another

B.D. Rathi, J.—Petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''the Code'') for quashment of FIR dated 09.09.2013 (Annexure P/1) registered at Police Station Padav, Gwalior at Crime No. 443/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 306 & 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short the ''IPC''). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Deepesh alias Jimmy Chug had committed suicide in the mid night of 20-21st August 2013 and for the first time in the affidavit (Ex. P/3) sworn by father of the deceased on 07.09.2013 the name of the petitioners as offender has been mentioned. The FIR (Ex. P/1) was registered on 09.09.2013 on the basis of the affidavit sworn by the father of the deceased Purushottam Chug, photo copy of the suicide note (Annexure P/2) was also filed by the petitioners. The name of the petitioners were also mentioned in the suicide note. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per FIR some money was financed to the deceased and that was repaid, even then Deepesh (since deceased) was subjected to cruelty mentally as well as physically and ultimately he had committed suicide.

It is further submitted that in the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case no case is made out against the petitioners in support of his contention he has relied on the following judgments:-

(i) Aarti Arya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, .

(ii) Sita @ Sita Pratap Vaishya Vs. State of M.P., .

(iii) Harira Vs. State of M.P., 2009(3) MPHT 24.

(iv) Dr. M.S. Rajput Vs. State of M.P., 2010(3) 57.

(v) Bhagwan Das and Others Vs. State of M.P., 2010(3) MPHT 239.

(vi) Dashrath P. Bundela and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Another, .

On the contrary, it is submitted by Shri Bhardwaj and Shri Sharma that firstly the photo copy of the FIR, suicide note and affidavit is not admissible in evidence. Secondly it was not explained that how these documents have come in possession of the petitioners, this act of the petitioners shows that they are influential persons and making interference directly in the investigation, hence on these grounds petition be dismissed. It is further submitted that the investigation is still going on and if no case is made out against the petitioners then certainly final report would be filed before the Magistrate as per law. So the pending investigation cannot be interfered. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the complainant has relied on the following judgments:-

(i) State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Pastor P. Raju, .

(ii) Didigam Bikshapathi and Another Vs. State of A.P., .

(iii) Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, .

(iv) Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, .

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, record has been perused.

It is an admitted fact that till today petitioners have not been arrested by the Police. Possibility of interference in investigation cannot be ruled out as doubted by the learned counsel for the respondents, in view that photo copies of documents of investigating agency have been filed alongwith the petition.

On perusal of these documents, in the opinion of this Court prima facie matter for investigation is made out. Investigation is pending and the inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code cannot be exercised to interfere with the statutory power of police to conduct investigation in a cognizable offence. Petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed summarily at the stage of admission.