Dr. Ramji Sharan Dangi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4641 MP

                              1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    M.Cr.C. No.28479/2019
      Dr. Ramji Sharan Dangi Vs. State of M.P. and another

Gwalior, Dated:01/04/2022

      Shri V.K. Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Shri R.S. Chauhan,

Advocate for applicant.

      Smt. Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for

quashment of FIR in Crime No.247/2019 registered at Police Station

Kotwali, District Datia for offence under Section 354 of IPC and all

other consequential proceedings.

2. It is not out of place to mention here that during pendency of

this application, the police has filed the charge-sheet after completing

the investigation for offence under Section 354, 509 of IPC.

3. According to the prosecution case, respondent No. 2 lodged an

FIR against the applicant on the allegations that she is the student of

MA 1st semester in Government P.G. College, Datia and the applicant

who is working as a Professor, Hindi Subject is harassing her and

was making indecent offers by inviting her to his house. He used to

tell her that she should take out some time for him and should sit with

him and in lieu of that, he would ensure that the examination is

passed by the complainant in flying color. When the complainant

refused to accede to his demands, then he threatened that he would

not allow her to appear in the examination. When she went to collect

her admission form, then he caught hold of her hand and offered her

that she should sit with him and nobody would come to know about

that. The applicant may surrender her for a night and he would ensure

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28479/2019 Dr. Ramji Sharan Dangi Vs. State of M.P. and another

that she gets First Division mark in M.A. When the complainant

responded that she does not require any favour and she would like to

appear in the examination on her preparation, then he challenged that

the police would not be in a position to do anything as the respondent

No. 2 will not have any proof against him and, therefore, she may go

and make complaint to anybody and in spite of repeated requests did

not give her admission card. When the entire incident was narrated

by her to the college Principal, then he summoned the applicant, but

he did not turn up and also refused to give admission card and,

therefore, the Principal issued a duplicate admission card. Since she

did not accede to the demands of the applicant, therefore, he gave

zero marks in CCE and also declared her fail in the Prayojan Moolak

Vishay. She made a complaint to the Principal as well to the

Collector, but no action was taken and, accordingly, the FIR was

lodged.

4. It is submitted that in the light of the judgment passed by the

Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka and others Vs. State of

Rajasthan and others reported in (1997) 6 SCC 241, an Internal

Committee has been constituted which conducted an enquiry and

gave a clean chit to the applicant and the police without considering

the report given by the Committee, has lodged the FIR. Furthermore,

this Court by interim order dated 17.07.2019 had directed the counsel

for the applicant to supply one set of petition along with documents

to the Investigating Officer so that he can look into the documents

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28479/2019 Dr. Ramji Sharan Dangi Vs. State of M.P. and another

and may enquire about their authenticity. It is submitted that in spite

of that, charge-sheet is completely silent about the report submitted

by the Committee. The applicant is an old person aged about 62

years. In fact, one Awdhesh Tiwari has enmity with the applicant. The

applicant had lodged an FIR against Awdhesh Tiwari in Crime

No.164/2019 at Police Station Kotwali District Datia for offence

under Section 353 of IPC and under the influence of Awdhesh Tiwari,

respondent No. 2 has lodged a false report against him. It is further

submitted that even Awdhesh Tiwari has also lodged a false report

against Brahmswaroop Gupta in Crime No.275/2017 registered at

Police Station Kotwali District Datia for offence under Section 354

of IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act on the allegations that he had

outraged the modesty of his minor daughter.

5. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

counsel for the State. It is submitted that it is a serious case, where a

girl student was given indecent offers by a Teacher. The applicant

who was expected to maintain high dignity being a Teacher of a

student, has crossed all his limits. Furthermore, it is well established

principle of law that if the complaint discloses a commission of

cognizable of offence, then the FIR has to be registered.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The report given by the Vishaka Committee reads as under:-

"------------------(not legible) LkUnHkZ %& izkpk;Z 'kk- LukrdksRrj egkfo| ky; nfr;k }kjk vkns'k Ø- [email protected] fnukad 08-

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28479/2019 Dr. Ramji Sharan Dangi Vs. State of M.P. and another

05-2019 A

izkpk;Z }kjk vkns'k nsdj lfefr dk xBu fn- 08-05-2019 dks fd;k x;k ,oa fn- 09-05-2019 dks lnL;ksa dks voxr djk;k x;k fd ;g tkWaPk iw.kZ gksuh gSA fnukad 10-05-2019 dks lEcfU/kr Nk=k ¼f'kdk;rdrkZ½ dks O;fDrxr :i ls cqyk dj lfefr dh efgyk lnL;ksa ds le{k fyf[kr :i esa mldk dFku fy;k x;kA fn- 11-

05-2019] 12-05-2019 ,oa 13-05-2019 dks pquko esa leLr LVkQ ds layXu gksus ds dkj.k fnukad 14- 05-2019 dks izksa-vkj-,l- nkaxh dk fyf[kr dFku fy;k x;kA nksuka i{kdkjksa ds dFku ds vk/kkj ij fo'kys"k.kkRed :i ls tkWap ds fcUnqvksa ij lfefr dk fu-fy-er gS%& fcUnq Øa- 1 % D;k Nk=k x ¼uke Nqik;k x;k½ ds lkFk dHkh Hkh f'kdk;r es of.Zkr izks- vkj-,l-nkaxh ds }kjk 'kkjhfjd nqO;ZO;ogkj fd; x;k \ Nk=k ds }kjk fn;s x;s dFkukuqlkj ;nk&dnk izk/;kid izks-nkxh }kjk ijs'kku fd;k tkrk Fkk rFkk muds }kjk Qksu Hkh fd;k tkrk FkkA ,d ckj Nk=k ds vuqlkj izks-nkaxh }kjk mldk gkFk Hkh idMk x;k ftldh f'kdk;r 03-

05-2019 dks izFke ckj Nk=k }kjk izkpk;Z egksn; MkWa- ,l- ds- feJk dks fd xbZA izk-s nkaxh }kjk izkIr dFkukuqlkj mUgksus dHkh Hkh Nk=k ls u rks 'kkjhfjd :i ls nqO;ZO;ogkj fd;k vkSj u gh Qksu fd;kA Nk=k fdlh O;fDrxr dkj.k ls izks- nksxh dks CySd esy djus gsrq ,slk dj jgh gSA mijksDr fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij %& &&&&&&(not legible) nqO;ZO;ogkj gksuk Li"V izrhr ugha gksrk gSA

fcUnq Ø- 2 % D;k Nk=k x ¼uke Nqik;k x;k½ dks lh-lh-bZ- es 'kwU; vad iz;kstu eqyd fgUnh esa izks- vkj- ,l- nkaxh ds }kjk Qsy fd;k x;k \ Nk=k }kjk fn;s dFkukuqlkj Nk=k dks nks iz'ui= C.C.E. es 'kwU; vad iznku fd;s x;s ,oa iz;kstu ewyd ds lS}kfUrd ¼prqFkZ iz'ui=½ es Qsy fd;k x;kA izk-s nkxh }kjk fn;s x;s dFkukuqlkj Nk=k

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28479/2019 Dr. Ramji Sharan Dangi Vs. State of M.P. and another

ds pkjksa C.C.E. iz'ui=ksa dk ewY;kadu muds } kjk djuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k] D;ksasfd muds vuqlkj ,e-,- d{kkvksa dk nkf;Ro muds ikl gS vr% fo"k; ls lEcfU/kr u fy[kus ij nks C.C.E. es 'kwU; vad fn;s x;s ,oa izek.k ds :i es C.C.E. dh mRrjiqfLrdk Hkh layXu dh xbZ gSA lS}kfUrd iz'ui= dk ewY;kadu Lo'kklh izdks"B ls laEcfU/kr gSA mijksDr fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij %& Nk=k dks nks iz'ui=ks ds C.C.E. es 'kwU;

vad iznku fd;s x;sA

fcUnq Ø- 3 % D;k izks- nakxh }kjk Nk=k dks le; ij izos'k i= ugha fn;k x;k \ Nk=k ,oa izks- nkaxh nksuks ds dFku ls Li"V gS fd Nk=k dks le; ij izos'k i= ugha fn;k x;k ftldh f'kdk;r Nk=k }kjk izkpk;Z MkWa- ,l- ds- feJk dks dh xbZ ftuds gLr{ksi ls Lo'kklh dk;kZy; ls MqIyhdsV izo's ki= dks iznku fd;k x;kA mijksDr fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij %& Nk=k dks le; ij izos'k i= ugha fn;k x;k ,oa izkpk;Z ds gLr{ksi ls Nk=k dks MqIyhdsV izo's ki= fn;k x;kA vfHker 1- Nk=k ds lkFk nqO;ZO;ogkj gksuk Li"V izrhr ugha gksrk gSA 2- Nk=k dks nks iz'ui=ksa ds lh-lh-bZ- es 'kwU; vad iznku fd;s x;sA 3- Nk=k dks le; ij izos'k&i= ugha fn;k x;k ,oa izkpk;Z ds gLr{ksi ls Nk=k dks MqIyhdsV izo's k&i= fn;k x;kA

tkWap lfefr & 1- MkWa- fd'kksj vjksjk 4- MkWa- byk f}osnh 2- MkWa- t;Jh f=osnh 5- MkW-a lhek flag 3- MkWa- ,l- lh- dkSf'kd

8. From the report, it is clear that the applicant had admitted that

he had evaluated two answer-sheets of CCE, in which he had given

zero marks to the respondent No. 2 and, accordingly, a finding was

given that the applicant has given zero marks in two question papers

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28479/2019 Dr. Ramji Sharan Dangi Vs. State of M.P. and another

of CCE.

9. So far as the allegation that the applicant had caught hold the

hand of the complainant was concerned, without any finding and

discussion, the Vishaka Committee gave a single line opinion that the

allegation does not appear to be specific and clear.

10. So far as the question of non-issuance of admission card to the

respondent No. 2 is concerned, Vishaka Committee has given a

specific finding that the applicant did not issue admission card and

ultimately on the complaint made to the Principal, a duplicate

admission card was issued to respondent No. 2. Thus, it is clear that

the Vishaka Committee had clearly come to a conclusion that the

applicant had given zero marks to respondent No. 2 in two question

papers of CCE and had also not issued the admission card and only

after the interference of the Principal, a duplicate admission card was

issued. Why the original admission card was not issued and why the

same was withheld by the applicant are two questions which are not

answered by the Vishaka Committee. Vishaka Committee also did not

try to verify as to whether the act of giving zero marks to the

respondent No. 2 in two question papers of CCE was proper or not.

The Vishaka Committee also did not give any finding as to why the

allegations of sexual harassment made by the respondent No. 2 were

not found to be clear, specifically when the respondent No. 2 had

made a complaint to the Principal on 03/05/2019. Furthermore, it is

well established principle of law that the reasons are the heartbeat of

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28479/2019 Dr. Ramji Sharan Dangi Vs. State of M.P. and another

the order and only from the reasons assigned by the authorities, it

would be clear that as to whether there was due application of mind

or not. When the Vishaka Committee out of three allegations found

that two allegations are correct and so far as the allegation No.1 with

regard to sexual harassment is concerned, it gave no reason for

coming to the conclusion that the allegations were not clear,

therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant

cannot get any advantage of the report submitted by the Vishaka

Committee. On the contrary, it is an incomplete report and in fact, it

goes against the applicant.

11. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, it is

sufficient to hold that no student would immediately lodge an FIR

against a Teacher. Only when the situation went out of control and if

the student decides to lodge an FIR, then it cannot be said that the

same was delayed because it is not the case of the applicant that the

allegations made by the respondent No. 2 were barred by limitation.

12. So far as the submission that the respondent No. 2 had acted

under the influence of one Awdhesh Tiwari is concerned, it is

sufficient to mention here that no one would put her pride and respect

at stake at the instance of another person. Furthermore, it appears that

the applicant is on inimical terms with Awdhesh Tiwari. In the light

of the report submitted by Vishaka Committee, according to which

the allegation of giving zero marks and the allegation of non-issuance

of admission card in spite of the directions by the Principal are

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28479/2019 Dr. Ramji Sharan Dangi Vs. State of M.P. and another

concerned, they were found to be correct and the respondent No. 2

could appear in the examination only on the strength of duplicate

admission card issued by the Principal, coupled with the fact that no

reasons have been assigned to hold that the allegation of sexual

assault by the applicant was false, this Court is of the considered

opinion that when the allegations made in the complaint are found to

be correct, then the malafide of the informant becomes secondary.

13. The Supreme Court in the case of Renu Kumari Vs. Sanjay

Kumar reported in (2008) 12 SCC 346 has held as under:-

"9. "8. Exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of CrPC. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under CrPC, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. The courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice on the principle of quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist).

While exercising the powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section, though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28479/2019 Dr. Ramji Sharan Dangi Vs. State of M.P. and another

when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has the power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the report, the court may examine the question of fact. When a report is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the report has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

9. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. (AIR p. 869)

10. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. The court should

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28479/2019 Dr. Ramji Sharan Dangi Vs. State of M.P. and another

be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. A note of caution was, however, added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as follows: (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) '(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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 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 Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28479/2019 Dr. Ramji Sharan Dangi Vs. State of M.P. and another

the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, 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.'

11. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision, in exercise of this power, is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State 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 magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar.] It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in the court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings. [See Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma,

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28479/2019 Dr. Ramji Sharan Dangi Vs. State of M.P. and another

Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi.]"

The above position was again reiterated in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta and State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, SCC pp. 547-50, paras 8-11.

14. Thus, it is held that first of all the applicant has failed to prove

that the complaint was lodged at the instance of Awdhesh Tiwari and

even otherwise, once the allegations made in the complaint are prima

facie correct in the light of the report submitted by the Vishaka

Committee, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is

made out for quashment of the FIR and its consequential

proceedings.

15. The application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2022.04.04 10:37:52 +05'30'