Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bagdu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 12 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12816 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. BAGDU S/O SHRI PURSINGH, AGED ABOUT 36
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
BADODIYA RUPAKHEDI, TARANA DISTT UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MOHANSINGH S/O SHRI KUSHALSINGH
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILL. BADODIYA,
RUPAKHEDI, TARANA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANISH YADAV)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH P.S. JHARDA DISTT UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. NISHA JAISHWAL)
This application coming on for order this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred for
quashment of FIR bearing crime No.118/17 registered at Police Station Jharda,
Distt. Ujjain and subsequent proceeding of criminal case No.RCT/106/2020
pending before the Court of JMFC, Mahidpur, Distt Ujjain.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 27.05.2017, SHO
Police Station Jharda, Inspector Prithvi singh after receiving a secret information
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIBHA PACHORI
Signing time: 12/13/2022
10:48:19 AM
that huge quantity of illicit country made liquor was being carried in a Mahindra
pick up vehicle bearing registration no.MP41GA241, he alongwith other police
officials went towards Makal Fanta and intercepted as well as seized about 1620
bulk liter illicit country made liquor amounting Rs.05 lakh. During investigation,
it was found that the aforesaid liquor was illegally carried by the driver - Bhaiyu
@ Islam (co-accused). It was found that applicants alongwith other co-accused
person loaded the illicit liquor in the aforesaid vehicle and they were involved in
the crime. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the
applicants and other co-accused person.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is apparent from the
record that driver of Mahindra pick up vehicle bearing registration
no.MP41GA241 in his disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of
Evidence Act disclosed the name of co-accused Prakash, as a person who
alongwith other loaded liquor found in the aforesaid vehicle. Co-accused
Prakash in his disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of Evidence Act
disclosed the name of the applicants alongwith other co-accused person, as the
persons who provided the vehicle to the co-accused. Learned counsel further
submits that admittedly the vehicle was owned by the co-accused Sunita who
purchased the same from Prabhulal vide agreement dated 28.05.2017.
Applicants were neither the owner of the said vehicle nor had taken the same on
rent. Applicants have been implicated in the crime only on the basis of
disclosure statements of co-accused persons Bhaiyu @ Islam and Prakash and
their statements recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act are not
admissible in law and are of no value. No case is made out against them,
therefore, FIR lodged in the matter with respect to the applicants may be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIBHA PACHORI
Signing time: 12/13/2022
10:48:19 AM
quashed alonwith subsequent proceedings pending before the Court of JMFC,
Mahidpur, Distt Ujjain against them.
4. Per contra learned counsel for respondent/State opposes the prayer
and submits that co-accused persons Bhaiyu @ Islam and Prakash in their
disclosure statements, disclosed the name of the applicants and their
involvement in the crime is apparent from the record. Therefore, this petition is
devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Upon perusal of record, it is apparent from the registration certificate
of the seized vehicle; Mahindra pick up vehicle bearing registration
no.MP41GA241 that the said vehicle was owned by co-accused Sunita at the
time of incident. They were admittedly not found on the spot and have been
implicated on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused persons Bhaiyu
@ Islam and Prakash, in pursuance of which nothing has been seized from the
possession of the applicants. There is nothing else on the record against them
from which it can be inferred that they were involved in the crime.
7 . The facts of of the case of Pappu Singh @ Rajendra Singh vs.
State of M.P., in which judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in MCRC No.36467/2019 dated 25.02.2020, are similar to the instant
case. Relevant paras are reproduced as under :-
33. The law is now well settled that the information given by the co-
accused is inadmissible if the same does not lead to any recovery. In
a string of judgment right from the preindependence era, the Courts
have settled this proposition of law. We can refer some of the
judgments passed in Pullukari Kotaya Vs. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67,
Haricharan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam reported in AIR 1964 SC 1184,
Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2004) 10 SCC 657 :
2005 SCC (Cri) 597, State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed
Mohammed Vakil Ansari reported in (2013) 12 SCC 17: 2013 SCC
OnLine SC 230 (page 36), Mustkeem Vs. State of Rajasthan
reported in (2011) 11 SCC 724, Asar Mohammad and Ors. Vs. State
of U.P. reported in AIR 2018 SC 5264, Kusal Toppo Vs. State of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIBHA PACHORI
Signing time: 12/13/2022
10:48:19 AM
Jharkhand reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1563, Valiyaveetil
Ashraf v. State, S.H.O. Kottakkal Police Station reported in 1992
SCC OnLine Ker 441 : 1994 Cri LJ 555 (page 561) and Pappu v.
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2000 SCC OnLine MP 442 :
2001 Cri LJ 875 (Page 876).
34. In this respect we can also illustrate some judgments Cr. R.
No.182/2020 of this Court rendered in Anant Kumar Vs. State of MP
reported in 1993 Cr.L.J. 1499, Sharif Khan Vs. State of M.P. 1997
(II) MPWN page 254 N 173, Raghu Thakur Vs.
State of M.P. reported in 2012 (4) MPHT 116, Suresh Upadhayay
Vs. State of M.P. passed in MCRC 837/2014 dated 5th March 2014,
Rajveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2015 (1) MPHT 265,
Raju @ Rajesh Chawla Vs. State of M.P. order dated 06.10.2015
rendered in MCRC No. 3579/2015, Gajendra Singh Bhadoria Vs.
State of M.P. reported in MANU/MP/0976/2016, Madan Lal Vs.
State of M.P. order dated 27.10.2017 rendered in CRR No. 69/2017,
Faijal & ors Vs. State of M.P. passed in MCRC 10904/2017 dated
19th February 2018, Dashrath Vs. State of M.P. passed in MCRC
5452/2017 dated 26 November 2018, Mohamad Wasim Mewati Vs.
State of M.P. passed in MCRC 4425/2019 Dated 11th March 2019.
35. Thus, it is explicit that the information given or disclosure made
by the accused to the police, which does not lead to any recovery, is
not admissible in evidence against co-accused and on the basis of
such inadmissible evidence, the prosecution of the petitioners is
nothing but abuse of process of law, which should not and cannot
be allowed to perpetuate. Though, the powers under Section 482 are
extraordinary in nature and has to be used sparingly and cautiously,
but these are the cases; where this Court is fully satisfied that non use
of such inherent powers would lead to or would cause injustice. It
would be in the interest of justice or necessary to achieve the object
of the law that no innocent person shall be allowed to face
unnecessary prosecution, if there being no evidence at all against
him. Therefore, all the petitions are allowed and the proceedings
pending against respective petitioners therein before the trial Court
are hereby quashed. The petitioners of respective petitions are
acquitted from the charges leveled against them. Their bail bonds, if
furnished, stand discharged.
8. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the observations
made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the above case, as the
information given or disclosure made by the co-accused persons to the police
does not lead to recovery of any identifiable material from the possession of the
applicants, the prosecution of the applicants is nothing but abuse of process of
law, hence, the petition is allowed. The FIR and chargesheet bearing No.118/17
Signature Not Verified
registered at Police Station Jharda, District Ujjain against the applicants and the
Signed by: VIBHA PACHORI
Signing time: 12/13/2022
10:48:19 AM
subsequent criminal proceedings pending against them are hereby quashed.
Applicants are discharged from the charges levelled against them. Their bail
bonds, if any furnished, stand discharged.
9. It is made clear that the prosecution against other co-accused persons
shall continue, in accordance with law.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for information
and necessary compliance/action without delay.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
Vibha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIBHA PACHORI
Signing time: 12/13/2022
10:48:19 AM
