Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 21st OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 7134 of 2022
Between:-
RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV S/O SHRI KISHORE
SINGH YADAV , AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O VILLAGE HIRAPUR
TAPARIYAN, POLICE STATION KOTWALI PANNA,
DISTRICT PANNA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ABHISHEK ARJARIA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT
MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
JAHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SAGAR
RANGE I.G OFFICE GOPALGANJ SAGAR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE DISTRICT PANNA
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
AJAYGAR H DISTRICT PANNA (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. DEVI SINGH RAJGAUD S/O PRAHLAD SINGH
RAJGAUD , AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
FARMER R/O VILLAGE AURAIYA POLICE STATION
AJAYGARH DISTRICT PANNA M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SUDEEP CHATTERJEE, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
T h is petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking direction for fair investigation/
Signature Not Verified
SAN
de-novo investigation into the matter for the offence which has been registered by
the police authorities at Crime No.395/2020 registered at Police Station Ajaygarh,
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.04.25 10:52:20 IST
District Panna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under under Sections 302, 307,
294, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 (2) (v), 3 (1) (da), 3 (1) (dha) and 3 (2)
(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 25/27 of the
Arms Act.
It is alleged that the petitioner was not present at the place of commission of
offence therefore, he has represented the matter to the police authorities for fair
investigation into the matter but the aforesaid aspect has not been taken into
consideration. Placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Vijay Tyagi Vs . Irshad Ali Alias Deepak and Others
reported in 2013 (5) SCC 762 he has prayed for direction by the respondent
authorities to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner.
In compliance of the order passed by this court on 30.03.2022, the
compliance report has been submitted by the State authorities pointing out the fact
that the investigation in the aforesaid matter is against the petitioner is still pending.
He is not co-operating in the investigation and has been declared as a proclaimed
absconder on 29.08.2020 and an award of Rs.10,000/- has already been
announced against him by the Superintendent of Police, Panna District Panna.
The other co-accused Prahalad Singh Rajgaud has been arrested on
06.04.2022. It is only the petitioner who remained to be arrested in the matter and
is not co-operating in the investigation and has filed this petition seeking a relief for
fair investigation. He has not even applied for bail in the matter and has out rightly
prayed for quashment of the same within a prayer of interim relief that not to take
any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance to registration of an FIR at
Crime No.395/2020. He is named in the FIR and has participated in the
commission of offence as is also reflected in the statement which has been
recorded.
In these circumstances no relief can be extended to the petitioner. It cannot
be stated that police is not doing the work in a proper manner therefore, he has
prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Signature Not Verified
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
From the perusal of the record it is not disputed that the criminal case at
Date: 2022.04.25 10:52:20 IST
Crime No.395/2020 registered at Police Station Ajaygarh, District Panna (M.P.) for
the offence punishable under under Sections 302, 307, 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC
and Sections 3 (2) (v), 3 (1) (da), 3 (1) (dha) and 3 (2) (va) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act has been
registered against the petitioner wherein, he is not co-operating in the investigation
and has been declared as a proclaimed absconder with an award of Rs.10,000/-
which has been announced by the Superintendent of Police, Panna on 29.08.2020.
Till date, he is absconding in the matter. he has taken a plea of eleby that he was
not present at the place of commission of offence. The aforesaid plea is a weak
type of evidence which is required to be established by the petitioner at the time of
trial. The relief of no coercive action to be taken against the petitioner cannot be
granted to the petitioner in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others reported in 2021 SCC Online 315.
As far as relief of fair investigation is concerned, the petitioner himself is not
co-operating with the investigating agencies therefore, it cannot be said that the
authorities are not investigating the matter in a proper way. The other co-accused
have already been arrested and in such circumstances and looking to the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Niharika Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) specially paragraph 80 where guidelines have been framed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court therefore, no relief can be extended to the petitioner
which reads as under :-
"80. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our
final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court
would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation
and/or '' œno coercive steps to be adopted ''ÂÂ, during the
pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances
and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of
not to arrest the accused or ''no coercive steps to be adopted'' during
the investigation or till the final report/charge sheet is filed under Section
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.04.25 10:52:20 IST 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing
the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, our final conclusions are as under:-
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV
of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable
offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of
any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will
not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ˜rarest of rare cases
(not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial
stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather
than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction
of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific
spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would
result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should
not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
Signature Not Verified
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its
Date: 2022.04.25 10:52:20 IST
whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which
mus t disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.
Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court
should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must
be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to
pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR
does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of
process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that
there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the
investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the
learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate
in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but
conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It
casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard
being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed
by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the
cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction
to quash the FIR/complaint;
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR
disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not
required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the
allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit
the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;
xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the
aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while
passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.04.25 10:52:20 IST under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution
o f India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the
pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection.
Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually
and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and
the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High
Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim
order of not to arrest or œno coercive steps to be adopted and the
accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section
438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and
as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or Âœno
coercive steps either during the investigation or till the investigation is
completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section
173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the
opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of
further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while
exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article
226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court
has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or
is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of
mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed
with the High Court while passing such an interim order.
xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court
of no coercive steps to be adopted within the aforesaid parameters, the
High Court must clarify what does it mean by Âœno coercive steps to
b e adoptedas the term œno coercive steps to be adopted can be
said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or
Signature Not Verified
misapplied."
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
In such circumstance, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
Date: 2022.04.25 10:52:20 IST
Petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Sha
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.04.25 10:52:20 IST
