At, High Court of Madhya Pradesh
By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
For the Appearing Parties: R.K. Tamrakar, Saurabh Soni, Advocates.
1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the charge-sheet in Criminal Case No.1012/2019 (State of M.P. vs. Ahmad Ali & others) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshangabad under Crime No. 426/2015, registered at Police Station Hoshangabad for the offence under Sections 365, 420/34 of the IPC.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the above mentioned charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner/accused under Section 365, 420/34 of IPC on the basis of written complaint filed by one Smt. Mohini after her father Pitambar Tiwari got missing. In her complaint, she alleged that co-accused Ahmad Ali, who resided nearby the house of missing person Pitambar Tiwari, developed cordial relations with him and cheated him by saying that he would get the tender of Wardhman Factory assigned in his name. He induced Pitambar Tiwari to handover money approximately Rs.20 Lakhs and also got the house of Pitambar Tiwari registered in his name and after that he sold that house to petitioner Kirti Mishra. Pitambar Tiwari is still missing. On the basis of written complaint, above mentioned offence was registered against the petitioner and the investigation is going on.
3. The grounds taken by the petitioner in brief are that from the evidence collected by the prosecution are not sufficient to prosecute the petitioner. The main allegations are against co-accused, not against the petitioner. The petitioner further stated that the Police had initially registered an offence against co-accused namely Ahmad Ali and Sayra Bano. This fact clearly shows that total false and concocted case has been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner further submitted that he has been made accused only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused, which is a weak type of evidence. There is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the aforesaid crime. Therefore, the charge-sheet under Crime No.426/2015 may be quashed against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the petition and argued that there is sufficient evidence available on record for prosecution of the petitioner therefore, this petition should be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. In the landmark case of State of Haryana & others vs. Bhajan Lal & others., (1992) Supp1 SCC 335 ], two Judges Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered in detail the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. Hon'ble the Supreme Court summarized the legal position by laying the following guidelines to be followed by the High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash the criminal complaint:-
(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 Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 155(2) 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 uncontroverted 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 under Section 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 malafide 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.
6. In this case, the evidence collected by the prosecution in the chargesheet clearly shows that there are sufficient grounds against the petitioner for his prosecution. The statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of witnesses Mohini Sharma, Kirti Tiwari, Saket Tiwari, Smt. Nudiny Tiwari, Sandesh Purohit, Yamini Tiwari have been recorded during the course of investigation. In their statements, the above-mentioned witnesses specifically corroborated the prosecution story. The documents related to the proper
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ty which was obtained by the petitioner by cheating have also been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the said crime. 7. On the basis of foregoing discussions and preposition of law as held in the case of State of Haryana (Supra), this Court does not find any reason for invoking the inherent powers to quash the charges and criminal proceedings registered against the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.