Sanat Kale And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors

Present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed for seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime

No. 30/2013 dated 08/01/2013 registered at Police-Station-Rajendra Nagar, Indore, wherein the present applicants are alleged to have committed

offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 327 and 506/34 of the IPC. The applicants also sought quashing of consequential proceedings arising in

furtherance of the said FIR.

The facts leading to filing of the present application commenced with a complaint made by the respondent No.6-Prateek Singh Sengar on

08/01/2013 alleging that he was on his way to college and was riding his vehicle bearing registration No. MP-09-CE-8382. Upon reaching Ret Mandi

Square, his way was obstructed by two unknown persons, who were riding a motor bike. These two unknown persons, thereafter, demanded money

from him. However, the respondent No.6 declined to pay any money to them, which resulted in scuffle, during which the complainant was repeatedly

assaulted by stick leading to injuries on his hand and other parts of the body. In the process, the respondent No.6 lost his gold chain. It has also been

alleged that the unknown assailants were holding a knife and also intimidated the respondent No.6.

After the incident, the unknown persons fled the spot, although, the respondent No.6 had sufficient look of them to identify in the event, they were

apprehended by the police. Having found prima facie case of commission of cognizable offences, the respondent No.1 proceeded to register an FIR

for commission of offence as indicated herein above. It is borne out from the record that during the course of investigation, on the basis of statements

of the complainant and other eye witnesses, the respondent No.1 apprehended the present applicants and upon completion of investigation, the charge-

sheet was presented before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Indore.

In the context of events narrated herein above, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the matter

by respondent No.5, who has personal grudge against them. In order to substantiate the submission, the applicants narrated their version of the story,

according to which while the applicant No.1 was driving his Red Maruti Waganor Car on the date of incident, the rider of motorcycle bearing

registration No. MP-09-CE-8382 rashly drove passed his car, due to which the applicants had to apply sudden break to prevent any untoward event.

After hitting the vehicle, the present applicant No.1 confronted the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. MP-09-CE-8382, although he started

hurling the abuses towards him and also manhandled him, during this process the applicants sustained injuries.

The above stated events were narrated by the applicant No.1 to his son, who is applicant No.2. Thereafter, both of them visited respondent No.1-

Police-Station in order to report the incident. However, the Officer on duty did not register the FIR, on the basis of information given by the applicants,

rather information given by the respondent No.5 was reduced in writing leading to recording of N.C.R. No. 21/2013. Later on, due to the fact that the

applicants had personnel enmity with the respondent No.5, he convinced with the respondent No.6 register as false case against the applicants, which

is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that even on 11/01/2013 some police officials visited his house to summon him to the

police station and when the applicants reached the police-station, respondent No.5 manhandled them without even showing their arrest, due to which,

the applicants sustained serious injuries on waste, legs and hips. Till this time the relatives of the applicants made complaint to the senior police

officials, due to which the respondent No.5 released the applicant No.1 from unlawful custody. At this juncture, the Senior Police Officials assured

initiation of appropriate action against the respondent No.5, but the assurance did not mitigate into any coercive action against the respondent No.5,

rather it met the respondent No.5 more furious. It is further submitted that background of previous enmity between the applicant No.1 and the

respondent No.5 is that the applicant No.1 is in the business of providing taxis on hire, which used to be availed by the respondent No.5 on free of

costs. However, after some time, the applicant No.1 refused such services to the respondent No.5, it is in this context the applicants apprehends that

the incident on 08/1/2013 was a set up otherwise the report made by the present applicants ought to have been commuted into FIR. It is also submitted

that during the said scuffle on 08/01/2013, the applicant No.2 was not even present on the spot and he has been roped by the respondent No.5 to settle

personnel score with the applicant No.1.

It is alleged that the applicants were subjected to inhuman treatment during their custody. Their request for medical examination was refused by the

police officials at the instruction of the respondent No.5 and the higher police officials are also shielding the respondent No.5. The apathy shown by

the respondents prompted the applicants to approach to the private Doctor for medical examination. The respondents did not stop at this and

proceeded to additional charge against the applicants for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Subsequently, it is prayed by

the learned counsel for the applicants that the proceedings drawn against them be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

applicants placed reliance in the judgments of Hon'ble apex court pronounced in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 33,5

D.K. Babu Vs. State of Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 D, r. Mehmood Nayyar Azam Vs. State of Chattisgarh & Ors., 2012 Cr.L.J. 393,4 Mamchand &

Ors. Vs. State, 1999 Cr.L.J. 1512, Shivanand Naik Vs. Senior Inspector, 2000 Cr.L.J. 4776 and Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 13

SCC 614.

In turned, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant supported the prosecution story and stated that the allegations

made in the FIR as well as in the charge-sheet, prima facie case is make out against the applicants, which is sole scope of the enquiry at the stage of

proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

I have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties and I am of the considered opinion that the version of the applicants involves disputed

question of facts and it is well established position of the law that at the stage of proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court is not

expected to weigh the respective versions of the parties and records its findings as to which is the lost plausible version. In any case the trial Court has

ample power to dwell into the respective pleas set up by the respective parties. At this stage, I can profitably refer to the scope of Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings, which has been elaborately dealt with in the case of Rajiv Thapar Vs. Madan Lal

Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330, in which the following observation made by the Hon'ble apex Court as under:- :-

“22. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it choses to quash the

initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of

charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well.

The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences,

in as much as, it would negate the prosectuion's/ complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a

determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the

High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to conclusion, that his/their defence is based on

sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in

the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complaint. It should be sufficient to to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the

prosecution /complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been

refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should

be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusasations are false. In such a situation, the judicial

conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that

would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.â€​

Upon cumulative consideration of the above, I have no hesitation in holding that in the facts of the present case, no indulgence under Section 482

of the Cr.P.C. can be made. It is view from the respective versions of prosecution and defence that are involved for adjudication are disputed question

of facts. Further any observation by this Court in relation to the submissions raised by the applicants, will prejudice their defence before the trial Court.

Therefore, this Court has not expressed any opinion on veracity of the respective versions set up by the parties. Consequently, the instant petition is

dismissed with liberty to the parties to raise all these contentions before the trial Court, which shall be adjudicated by them without being influenced by

the decision of this Court.

Let a copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information.

Certified copy as per rules.