Vishram Singh Kushwah vs The State of M.P., Shri S.K. Mishra and Dadhar Singh

Brij Kishore Dubey, J.—This petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., is preferred by the petitioner who is working as Patwari for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No. 176/2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC, by the Police Narwar, District Shivpuri. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has neither prepared any false document nor made any false entry in the revenue record but has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The FIR was registered under the orders of the Tehsildar passed in the revenue proceedings in which the petitioner has not been given the opportunity of being heard. It is further submitted that at the relevant time, the petitioner was not posted at the said Halka and joined there only on 09/03/11. On the basis of the complaint of Dadhar Singh, the Tehsildar had initiated the enquiry who (Dadhar Singh) has submitted an affidavit dated 03/01/13 stating therein that he has no direct or indirect relation with the petitioner, the Reader of Tehsildar got his signatures on blank papers and he has not given any bribe to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged mutation was made in the revenue record on the basis of a direction issued by the Tehsildar. Apart from that, even if the mutation has taken place, the same can be challenged in the Revenue Court, therefore, the petitioner cannot be made liable for the criminal proceedings. In this regard, he has placed reliance on an order dated 07/09/2013 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in Mukesh Tiwari Vs. The State of M.P., Mis. Cr. Case No. 5161/10.

In response, learned Panel Lawyer submits that during the course of enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar, proper opportunity of being heard was accorded to the petitioner and thereafter passed an order to lodge a report against the petitioner.

It is transpired from the record that there was a complaint against the petitioner regarding the manipulation of the revenue record and cheating. The complaint got enquired by the Tehsildar, Narwar, District Shivpuri. On being found proved the complaint, the Tehsildar has lodged a report against the petitioner which was registered by the Police Station, Narwar, District Shivpuri at Crime No. 176/12 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC., which reads as under:

It is settled law that the FIR which sets into motion the investigation process can be quashed only in a case where the facts as alleged in the report, even if taken to be true, do not prima facie discloses that a cognizable offence has been committed by the accused. The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Dharam Singh and others, 1987 (Supp) SCC 89 observed as under:

The High Court has, however, not confined its scrutiny to the averments contained in the first information report but has traversed beyond and examined the case in the light of the contentions put forth by the respondents in their petition u/s 482 CrPC. By indulgence in such exercise the High Court has come to the conclusion that the second respondent Cooperative Society cannot be termed a dealer of the alleged adulterated fertilizer distributed to its members because there was no sale involved in the transaction, that for the same reason the second respondent Society was not bound to obtain a Registration Certificate for selling fertilizer and furthermore the alleged sale of adulterated fertilizer was itself open to serious doubt because of conflicting analysis reports issued by the Chemical Analyst regarding the fertilizer and hence the emergent position is that the first information report does not disclose the commission of cognizable offences. Thus what the High Court has done is to go far beyond the contents of the first information report and enter into a discussion on the merits of the case before the Investigating Agency had conducted investigation and collected evidence.

The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside. The first information report will stand restored to file and further investigation will be proceeded with in accordance with law.

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court in the leading case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, laid down the illustrative categories of cases in which the High Court can exercise the powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under:

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C., can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information in Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and Another Vs. Md. Khalique and Another, held as under:

In view of the settled legal position and as offences have been disclosed in the FIR, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the investigation and should have permitted the police to complete it. We, accordingly, hold that the High Court has committed grave error in quashing the entire proceedings and ought not to have thwarted the prosecution.

Thus, where specific allegations were made in the FIR and a prima facie case was made out against the accused disclosing a cognizable offence, powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., should not be exercised.

In view of the specific allegations made in the FIR, it cannot be said that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner/accused and that it did not disclose a cognizable offence.

The case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, in the light of the well settled legal position and in view of the facts of the present case, has no assistance to the petitioner. Resultantly, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to hereinabove and the facts mentioned in the FIR but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court does not find any merit for interference in this petition while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., therefore admission is declined.