Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 March, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
-( 1 )- MCRC No. 5522/2021
Anil Kumar Shrivastava vs. State of MP & Anr.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(Single Bench)
Misc. Criminal Case No. 5522/2021
Anil Kumar Shrivastava ..... APPLICANT
Versus
State of MP and Another ..... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM
Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Shri S.K.Shrivastava, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Rajeev Upadhyay, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for Reporting : No
Reserved on : 15.03.2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on 26th March, 2021)
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been preferred by the applicant praying for
quashment of FIR registered at Crime No. 115/2018 by Police
Station Sirol, District Gwalior, for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, and all other consequential
proceedings flowing from the aforesaid FIR.
2. The facts leading to filing of present petition are, that on
30.09.2018 Office of Tehsildar, Tehsil Gwaior issued a letter to
respondent No.1 alleging that land bearing Patwari Halka No. 79,
Survey No. 50/2, 65/1 situated in village Sirol, District Gwalior
-( 2 )- MCRC No. 5522/2021
Anil Kumar Shrivastava vs. State of MP & Anr.
was given to Gwalior Development Authroity on lease, however
by virtue of the judgment and decree dated 8.3.2010 passed by
Sixth Civil Judge Class-1, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 175-A/2008,
the land in question of survey No.50 admeasuring 6 bighas 16
biswas, survey No. 51 admeasuring 1 bigha 10 biswas and survey
No.65/1 admeasuring 6 bigha 10 biswas was held to be of
ownership of plaintiff Radhelal. The aforesaid judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court was put to challenge by Gwalior
Development Authority before District Judge, Gwalior, wherein it
was alleged that Radhelal has got decree by manipulating the
revenue records. Since as per respondent No.2, the land in
question is government land and the judgment and decree passed
by the trial Court was obtained by manipulating the revenue
records, therefore, on the basis of complaint sent by respondent
No.2, the FIR was registered on 31.7.2018 against the applicant
and one Radhelal, without conducting proper investigation and
without considering the effect of judgment passed by Civil Court.
As the entire case against the present applicant, who had nothing
to do with the case, is an abuse of process of law, hence the
present petition is preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the
registration of FIR as well as filing of charge sheet against the
present applicant is an abuse of process of law and same deserves
to be quashed. As per complaint itself, one civil suit was filed by
Radhelal seeking declaration of title of land bearing survey No.
50, 51, 65/1 situated in village Sirol, District Gwalior. The said
civil suit was filed by Radhelal through present applicant as power
of attorney holder. Radhelal participated in the trial, adduced
evidence and produced the alleged forged revenue record. The
-( 3 )- MCRC No. 5522/2021
Anil Kumar Shrivastava vs. State of MP & Anr.
present applicant has done nothing. The applicant has annexed
with this petition copies of complaint (Annexure P/3), affidavit of
Radhelal filed under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC (Annexure P/4) and
judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 175A/2008.
Therefore, there is no iota of evidence available on record by
which prima facie case is made out against the present applicant to
establish that the applicant has interpolated in the document. It is
also submitted that the present applicant was only power of
attorney holder and he had not participated in the trial. Therefore,
the proceeding initiated as per complaint of Tehsildr, is relating to
Radhelal. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the
applicant has placed reliance on the judgment in B. Suresh Yadav
vs. Sharifa Bee [(2007) 13 SCC 107]; Sardool Singh and
another vs. Smt. Nasib Kaur [1987 (Supp) SCC 146]; Manoj
Kumar Sharma and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and
another [2017(1) MPLJ (Cri.)(SC) 246; and, Mukul Agrawal
and others vs. State of UP, [2020 (3) MPLJ (Cri.)(SC) 228].
Hence, prays for quashment of FIR registered against the present
applicant along with other consequential proceedings.
4. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State opposed the submissions and submitted that the
present case has been registered against the applicant for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC,
therefore no interference at this stage is called for by this Court in
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC.
5. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and
perused the available record.
6. From perusal of the material available on record, it is
apparent that the alleged offence has been committed by the
-( 4 )- MCRC No. 5522/2021
Anil Kumar Shrivastava vs. State of MP & Anr.
present applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. The
truthfulness of the statement or circumstances or documents of the
prosecution cannot be questioned at this stage by the defence. The
material on record discloses the grave suspicion and o n the basis of
the material on record it can be inferred that the accused might have
committed an offence.
7. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana and others Vs. CH. Bhaiyalal [AIR 1992 SC 604] that
when allegations in complaint clearly constitute cognizable offence,
then interference in the trial is not justified. Similarly, in the case of
State of Orissa and another vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo [(2006) 2
SCC 272], it has been observed that inherent powers are to be
exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the
High Courts should not embark upon an inquiry as to reliability of
evidence to sustain the allegations, which is the function of the trial
Court.
8. Truthfulness or falsehood of allegations made by the
complainant in his complaint is to be established by evidence to be
produced before the trial Court and only looking to the FIR it cannot
be inferred that prima facie no offence is made out against the
present applicant. Therefore, in the case in hand, there is no question
of invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings.
9. Consequently, the petition filed by the applicant
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed being
devoid of any merits and substance.
ALOK KUMAR
2021.03.26
17:56:31 +05'30'
11.0.8
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
(AKS) Judge.
