Rajupatel @ Rajendra Singh vs Babulal Deevan

This petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the criminal complaint dated

17.09.2014 (Annexure-A/1), pending before JMFC, Bina.

The factual matrix of the case in brief is that, respondent Babulal filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner for offfence under Sections 176, 382,

386, 302 and 201, read with Section 34 of the IPC and prayed to proceed in accordance with Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

It is alleged in the complaint that on 05.04.2012, Kashiram Nahoniya was caught by the accused persons. He was given electric shocks and was

pressurized to execute a will in favour of accused Shribai. He was beaten, injured and tortured and subsequently thrown from the second floor of the

house, because of which Kashiram sustained injuries and died. The accused persons then left their houses. They took away the ornaments and other

valuables kept by Kashiram. The dead body of Kashiram was taken away and without informing the police the body of Kashiram was cremated.

Harprasad, son of Laxman was the only person, who witnessed the incident. Jairam alias Rajaram, Yamunendra, son of Jairam, Brijmohan, son of

Harprasad, R/o- villiage Bellai saw the incident.

It is also contended that deceased Kashiram has two daughters. (1) Rambati alias Ramrati, wife of Babulal the complainant. She was adopted by

Kashiram when she was a child. (2) Shribai (accused No.2) is the daughter of Suraj Singh. She claimed that Suraj Singh was the brother of Kashiram.

Suraj Singh died before her birth. Mother of Shribai married another man. Due to their wedlock accused Shribai was born. There were civil disputes

of land between Kashiram and accused Shribai, Rambati alias Ramrati is the adopted daughter of Kashiram and he executed a “will†in favour of

Ramrati.

As per the complaint, Kashiram executed a “will†in favour of Rambati. Because of which, the accused persons were annoyed and while

pressurizing Kashiram, inflicted injuries to him by fists and kicks. They also gave him electric shocks and thrown him from the second floor of the

house. Because of which, Kashiram died. Therefore, the accused persons are liable for the offences committed by them.

On behalf of the petitioners, it is claimed that as per the complaint Para-11, Harprasad was the only witness who saw the incident on 05.04.2012.

When the accused persons came there and tortured Kashiram and thrown him from the second floor. Kashiram tried to escape but could not do so.

Dead body of Kashiram lying on the courtyard. The accused persons took away the properties. Some villagers gathered there and insisted for a police

report and to conduct postmortem of Kahiram. The accused persons left the place. After two hours, they came with a Bolero Jeep, took away the

dead body of Kashiram stating that they will lodge report at P.S. Bina, but after some time they returned and cremated the dead body by making pyre.

On the said information of Harprasad, the complainant Babulal rushed to village Billai and found the dead body of Kashiram burnt. On 07.04.2012 a

report was lodged. But no action was initiated by the police. Therefore he filed a private complaint. Learned JMFC Bina, after recording the

statements of Babulal, Preeti Bai, Shuklal, Tula Ram Breejmohan, Rajendra Singh, Purushottam, Puran, Rambati alias Ramrati and Shailendra, son of

Babulal, registered the case. Thereafter, the same was committed to the Court of Session on 12.04.2017.

The petitioner’s main contention is that Harprasad, son of Lakshman Kushwaha allegedly said to be the eye witness but Harprasad died in the

year 2013 but the complaint filed on 17.09.2014 does not disclose the death of Harprasad. There is no other eye witness named or examined in the

complaint case. The witnesses examined did not disclose that they have seen the incident. The complainant Babulal his wife Ramrati, his son

Shailendra all were not present at the time of incident. Preeti Bai does not support the complainant’s story except that there was dispute between

Kashiram and Shribai. Shukhlal does not support the complainant's story. Tularam Kushwaha also says that he is ignorant of the incident. Brijmohan

says that when the death of Kashiram occurred he was at Bina. Rajendra Singh also expressed his ignorance about the death of Kashiram.

Purushottam states that he heard about the death of Kashiram. It was informed to him that Kashiram fell down and sustained injuries, therefore,

Ambulance was called. At that time, he reached at the spot. Kashiram was dead and was taken to the hospital. According to him, Kashiram died due

to “heart attackâ€​.

Puran (preliminary witness No.8) also is not aware about the death of Kashiram. Ramrati Bai and Shailendra though have stated that offence has

been committed by the petitioner but they claimed to be hearsay witnesses. They submits that Harprasad and his son intimated about the incident to

them. Shailendra also says there were several persons at the spot and insisted for calling Ambulance and the kotwar by dialing number 108.

Ambulance was present at the spot. Kotwar was also present. At that time Kashiram was alive. The accused persons were also present there. He

claimed that as the accused persons threatened nobody opposed their action. Kotwar of the village when told by Shailendra to inform police he replied

that he has already sent information to the police.

Counsel for the petitioner also alleges that out of these witnesses none claim to have seen the incident but the learned JMFC erred to register the

criminal case. Regarding the statement of Preeti Bai it is stated that she had no knowledge of Kashiram having been beaten by the accused persons

or he died because of the electric shocks. Shukhlal, Tularam, Brijmohan and Rajendra Singh do not even know how Kashiram died. Puran also has

claimed that he has no knowledge of the death of Kashiram. It is argued that because of several disputes between Kashiram and Shribai, his niece,

the complainant’s husband of Ramrati, in whose favour the will was executed by Kashiram has implicated the applicants with ulterior motive.

Without any evidence the petitioners are being prosecuted which is abused of the process of the Court.

During course of the arguments counsel for the petitioner submits that deceased Kashiram aged about 81 years, which has been deliberately withheld

by the complainant. It is also contended that the witness Shailendra has also claimed that accused persons cut Kashiram’s nose and ears, while

torturing him. But this fact is not found in the complaint which is purely exaggeration and after thought.

The contentions of the respondents are that learned JMFC after having considered preliminary statement of the witnesses has registered the offence

and committed the case to Sessions Court. Therefore, this petition is not maintainable. It is also contended that the witnesses have prima facie

disclosed the commission of the offence. Specific averment in the complaint constitute offence. Hence, it would not be appropriate to embark upon an

enquiry at this stage. He also referred certain cases civil and criminal pending between the parties.

The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised very sparingly to prevent the misuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the

ends of justice. In the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharastra reported as AIR 1978 SCC 47, the Apex Court has laid down the above

principle. In the complaint case, there is no prima facie evidence available as regarding the commission of the offence if the complaint is taken in its

face value in its entirety.

The accused person can approach the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to have the proceedings

quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him to avoid undergo the agony of a criminal trial.

In the present case the allegations made in the complaint and in the deposition recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. do not constitute the alleged

offence. Therefore, there is justification in the arguments of the petitioners for quashing the proceeding. No witnesses examined by the complainant

claim to have seen the incident, whereas, some witnesses examined, claim that Kashiram fell from the second floor and died. The preliminary

evidence do not show the prima facie case for prosecution of the petitioner. It would not exaggerate to show that the complaint is frivolous and it does

not disclose the commission of the offence for there is no single eye witness to the incident. The witnesses who have stated that the villagers were

present at the spot, have not been examined nor named. The complaint do not disclose that Harprasad the alleged eye-witness died in the year 2013,

though the complaint was filed in the year 2014.

In the case of Dhanlaxmi Vs. Prashant Kumar AIR 1990 SCC 494, it is held that the High Court can quash the proceeding when the allegations in the

complaint do not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. Interest of justice requires High Court’s interference when

prosecution has been levelled by the complainant to harass the petitioner. Therefore, this petition is allowed. The complaint dated 17.09.2014 is

therefore quashed.