Uday Singh vs The State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No. 11/10, Police Station Amayan, Bhind, District Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 332, 341, 506-B, 323, 336, 143, 427, 171 (Ga), (Gha) of IPC and Section 14(Gha) of Panchayat Nirwachan Adhiniyam. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Tahsildar Singh who was discharging his duty as Presiding Officer, has lodged a report that on 21.01.2010 when Panchayat Election was going on agent Devendra informed him that some persons are planning to caste forged voting. At 3:15 P.M. when the complainant was closing the ballot boxes petitioner alongwith some other persons came there and started affixing stamp on the voter slips of Sarpanch. In the mean time ASI Girish Kumar Gaud alongwith police force came there and on seeing the force, all the accused persons fled away. The complainant has narrated the incident to the ASI Gaud. Thereafter complainant alongwith the police force brought the ballot boxes safely upto Pura, but petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons encircled the complainant and police force and started pelting stones. As a result of which ASI Gaud has sustained injury on his left leg. The glass of the vehicle has also got broken. On the basis of this report crime No. 11/10, under Sections 353, 332, 341, 506-B, 323, 336, 143, 427, 171(Ga), (Gha) of IPC and Section 14(Gha) of Panchayat Nirwachan Adhiniyam has been registered. Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this petition.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR lodged against the petitioner is false. Petitioner is an innocent and law abiding citizen. Petitioner is in government service and is serving in 14th Bn. M.P.S.A.F. At the time of incident he was discharging his duty. The complainant, Tahsildar Singh who was Presiding Officer at the time of incident was not knowing to the accused persons and on the information given by agent Devendra he named the accused persons in the FIR.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the agent Devendra has sworn affidavit that at the time of incident the petitioner was not present on the spot and he has not named the petitioner. The petitioner after having knowledge of the registration of the FIR and having knowledge that in the inquiry some persons have been exonerated, the petitioner has also moved an application for re-investigation into the matter addressing the Inspector General of Police, Chambal Zone, Gwalior. It is prayed that in view of the FIR lodged against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is going on against the petitioner u/s 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and the FIR can not be quashed hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.

In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record.

From the perusal of Annexure P/1, it appears that petitioner has been named in the FIR alongwith co-accused, which has been lodged on the same day and the matter is under investigation by the Police u/s 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

The investigation into a cognizable offence is a statutory right of the police under Sections 154, 156 of Cr.P.C. and so long as Investigation Officer is making investigation independently it is not within the powers of High Court in exercise of powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. to interfere with the investigation. The manner and method of investigation are left entirely to Police Officer.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Surendra Kori, has observed as under:-

The High Court in exercise of its powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. does not function as a court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, u/s 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material.

In M.M.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd., this Court held as follows: (SCC p, 236)

The law is well settled that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised very stringently and with circumspection. It is settled law that at this stage the Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been named in the FIR on the basis of the information given by the agent Devendra, present in the polling station and Devendra has sworn an affidavit that he has not stated the name of Uday Singh and the fact that the petitioner was on duty cannot be considered at this stage. Petitioner ought to have brought these facts into the notice of concerned Investigating Officer.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and Another Vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, in para 14 has observed as under:-

It is to be noted that the investigation was not complete and at that stage it was impermissible for the High Court to look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. While exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a trial court. Even when charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate material and documents on records but it cannot appreciate evidence. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. In Chand Dhawan Vs. Jawahar Lal, it was observed that when the materials relied upon by a party are required to be proved, no interference can be drawn on the basis of those materials to conclude the complaint to be unacceptable. The Court should not act on annexures to the petitions u/s 482 Cr.P.C., which cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved"

In view of the aforesaid analysis, no case is made out for exercise of extra ordinary power u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., of this Court. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.