Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pitta @ Jagbhag Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 April, 2022

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                                 1
            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        MCRC-53221-2021
     Pitta @ Jagbhag Singh and others Vs. State of MP and others

Gwalior, Dated: 23.04.2022

        Shri Padam Singh, Counsel for the applicants.

        Shri C.P. Singh, Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2/State.

Shri P.K. Maheshwari, Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed

seeking the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to allow this petition and to quash the F.I.R., charge-sheet and whole of the criminal proceedings (whatever it may be) arises out of the aforesaid Crime No.0031/2021 U/s 306 read with Section 34 of IPC P.S. Sehrai, District Ashoknagar (M.P.) in the interest of justice."

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that Crime

No.31/2021 has been registered in Police Station Sehrai District

Ashoknagar for offence under Section 306/34 of IPC and after

completing the investigation, the police has filed the charge-sheet

and the cognizance of the same has been taken by JMFC, Mungawali

District Ashoknagar.

3. The necessary facts for disposal of the present application in

short are that one Dehati Nalishi dated 30.12.2018 was lodged on the

information given by Sunil Sahu on the allegations that they were in

cultivating possession of the land which otherwise remains under

catchment area of pond. Earlier they had sown mustered crop, but

due to heavy rains, area got submerged, as a result, the crop was

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-53221-2021 Pitta @ Jagbhag Singh and others Vs. State of MP and others

damaged. Now the same land has been forcibly cultivated by the

residents of village thereby depriving them from the fruits of the

government land and, accordingly, his brother Ramniwas has

committed suicide by hanging himself. Police found a suicide note

which reads as under:-

^^ysk/kks ds ikl ucaj nks ds gFk;kj gS gekjh tehu cks nh iwjh tcju esa cnwad ysdj vk x;s jkejkt /kjeyky lUrks"k tljke chju jkejkt c`tsUnz veksy Å/ke jfcUnz iUukyky mes'k flax xqM~Mk ns'kjkt fiVVk djuflax xtjkt 'ksjflax jktHkku pUnzHkku dqUnu lr;snz dYyw j.kohj jktiky jktdqekj Åny ijeky v'kksd odhy egkjktflax cqUnsy Hkjrflax iIiw vjfcUn igkjflax Hkwjk :is'k dVVk cUnwd ysdj vk x;s ekjus vkSj cksyrs gS ,slh ekSr ekjsxsA lcwr ch ugh feyus nsxs 35 lky ls tksr jgs gS ge yksx vkSj iSlk Hkjrs gS jlhn Hkh gS iqfyl Hkh ugh lqurh uk gh iVokjh uk gh rglhynkj uk fo/kk;d 35 lky ls tksr jgs gS ge vkSj cksyrs gekjh gS uk gh gekjh xHkkbZ nsus okyk gS dksbZ yks/kksa dk ,d gh ifjokj gS vkSj cksyrs gS ,slh ekSr ekjsxs dh dksbZ lcwr Hkh ugha feysxk dHkh Hkh ekj ldrs gSa vkSj cksyrs gS ,d ,d djds ekjsxs blfy, esus bl ij fy[k fn;k gSA

lquhy lkgw^^

4. It appears that the suicide note was sent to the Handwriting

Expert for examination. By way of abundant caution, the

Investigating Officer also collected the specimen handwriting of the

brother and father of the deceased in order to rule out the possibility

of creation of forged suicide note. The Handwriting Expert submitted

its report dated 30.01.2021 and gave a specific finding that the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-53221-2021 Pitta @ Jagbhag Singh and others Vs. State of MP and others

suicide note is in the handwriting of the deceased. Only after the

receipt of the report of the Handwriting Expert, it appears that the

FIR was registered on 03.03.2021 against the present applicants.

5. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the

specimen handwriting of the deceased as well as the suicide note

were not sent to the Handwriting Expert. There is a delay in lodging

the FIR. Even if the entire allegations are accepted, then it would not

make out an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. In case, if

a person is deprived from the land, which was encroached upon by

himself, then it cannot be said that the deceased was deprived from

his livelihood. Furthermore, it is clear that the FIR was registered

against 38 persons, but only 32 persons were charge-sheeted and the

Court has taken cognizance against 35 persons and still 3 persons are

away from the clutches of the Court, therefore, the charge-sheet filed

against the applicants is liable to be quashed.

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

counsel for the State. It is submitted that as per the policy of the State

Government, the land which comes under the submergence

area/catchment area of pond is given on lease so that the lessee can

cultivate the said land during the period when the land in question is

not under submergence. The mother of the deceased was granted

Patta and, accordingly, it is clear that the deceased was in lawful

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-53221-2021 Pitta @ Jagbhag Singh and others Vs. State of MP and others

possession of the land in dispute. The applicants, who had otherwise

no right or title over the land in question, had forcibly taken away the

possession from the deceased by extending a threat to him. There is

no delay in lodging the FIR. Initially, the Dehati Nalishi was lodged

immediately and the suicide note as well as admitted handwriting of

the deceased along with the specimen of the handwriting of the

brother and father of the deceased were sent to the Handwriting

Expert so as to rule out any possibility of manipulation and only

when the report of Handwriting Expert was received to the effect that

suicide note is in the handwriting of the deceased, the FIR was

lodged. It is further submitted that merely because some of the

accused persons have not been charge-sheeted, would not be a good

ground to quash the proceedings.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is the case of the prosecution that mother of the deceased

was granted Patta by the State Government to cultivate the land

which otherwise comes under the catchment area of pond. Thus, the

deceased and his mother are/were in lawful possession of the land in

dispute. Dispossessing a person is nothing, but depriving him from

earning his livelihood. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the

applicants that they had any authority to dispossess the deceased

from the land which was allotted to mother of the deceased on lease

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-53221-2021 Pitta @ Jagbhag Singh and others Vs. State of MP and others

by the State Government.

9. So far as the non-filing of charge-sheet against six persons as

well as non-taking of cognizance against three persons by the Court

is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the charge-

sheet against the accused persons cannot be quashed merely on the

ground that some of the co-accused persons have not been charge-

sheeted.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s Suvarna Cooperative

Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and another by judgment dated

09.12.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.1535/2021 has held as under:-

"4. We have perused and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the reasoning given by the High Court mentioned in paragraphs 7 and 8 while quashing the criminal proceedings against the original accused no.1. Having gone through and considered the reasoning given by the High Court while quashing the criminal proceedings against original accused no.1, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the private respondent herein - original accused no.1 is unsustainable, both, in law and on facts. The High Court has observed that in absence of the officers of the drawee bank informing the payee's banker with reference to dishonour of one of the cheques well within the time stipulated in the Clearing House Rules which amounts to offence under Sections 408 and 409 of IPC,without the presence of accused nos. 2 and 3 in the PCR, the charge-sheet could not have been filed only against accused no.1. While quashing the criminal proceedings the High Court has observed in para 8 as under:

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-53221-2021 Pitta @ Jagbhag Singh and others Vs. State of MP and others

"8. In the light of the complainant keeping quite in not taking any action against incomplete charge sheet, which is filed by the first respondent police in arraigning only accused nos. 1 and 6 as accused in CC.No.22308/2012, the prosecution against two of them without the presence of other persons, who are said to have involved in the same, would not be complete charge sheet and the alleged offence would not be complete against two of them without there being the accomplice to the said act also being arraigned as the accused. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that prosecuting accused nos. 1 and 6 in the instant case, in the absence of accused 2 and 3, would be of no avail and would not take this matter to the logical end. Hence, the same is required to be quashed."

4.1 The aforesaid cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused who was charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer after thorough investigation. Merely because some other persons who might have committed the offences, but were not arrayed as accused and were not charge- sheeted cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused who is charge- sheeted after a thorough investigation. During the trial if it is found that other accused persons who committed the offence are not charge-sheeted, the Court may array those persons as accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Merely because some of the persons who might have committed the offences are not charge-sheeted, cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings against the accused charge- sheeted after having found prima facie case against him after investigation. Nothing has been further observed by the High Court on merits and/or on the allegations against the private respondent herein - original accused no.1.

4.2 Under the circumstances the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-53221-2021 Pitta @ Jagbhag Singh and others Vs. State of MP and others

quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondent no.2 herein - original accused no.1 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

11. Therefore, because some of the accused persons have not been

charge-sheeted or the Trial Magistrate has not taken cognizance

against three accused persons cannot be a good ground to quash the

proceedings.

12. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the same is

misconceived. The deceased Ramniwas committed suicide by

hanging himself on 29.12.2018 and the Dehati Nalishi was lodged on

30.12.2018. The specimen signatures of the deceased as well as his

relatives were obtained by the police and were sent to the