Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ishwarlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2022
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 28th OF MARCH, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 47501 of 2021
Between:-
ISHWARLAL S/O SHRI JAGDISH JI GAYARI , AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIRIST R/o: VILLAGE KACHAYRIYA
CHANRAWAT, P.S. PIPLIYA MANDI, DISTRICT
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI Abhishek Rathore Adv.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
NARCOTICS CELL, INDORE, PRAKOSTH
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY Ms. Bharti Lakkad, GA)
This M.Cr.C. coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1/ This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(in short "Cr.P.C.") has been preferred for quashment of FIR, the subsequent final
report No.15/2021 dated 11.3.2021 in connection with the Crime No.7/2021
registered by Police Stationi - Narcotics Cell, Indore against the applicant for
commission of offence punishable under Section 8/18 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short "NDPS Act").
2/ The facts of the case briefly started are that on 21.1.2021 police got
discreet information from the informer that co-accused Chenram will be going to
deliver the contraband opium to one unknown person and having illegal opium. On
the basis of the said information, police party reached on the spot and seized 1 kg
500 gms opium from the possession of co-accused Chenram. The applicant has
been implicated in the present crime on the basis of disclosure statement of co-
accused Chenram recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Date: 2022.03.29 12:54:18 PDT
3/ Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and
he has been falsely implicated in this matter. Neither any contraband article has
been recovered from the possession of the applicant nor any direct evidence is
found against him. It is further submitted that applicant was not present on the spot
at the time of alleged incident. The complicity of the applicant is alleged only on
the basis of disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
which is not admissible until and unless there is no recovery. However, the said
disclosure statement is not legally admissible in evidence within the meaning of
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Apart from this there is no other evidence
available on record to connect the applicant with the present crime. Therefore, it is
prayed that in absence of any legally admissible evidence, the FIR bearing Crime
No.7/2021 dated 21.1.2021 registered against the present applicant at P.S. -
Narcotics Cell, Indore for offence punishable under Section 8/18 & 29 of NDPS
Act and the subsequent charge sheet deserves to be quashed.
4/ Per contra, learned GA for the respondent/State has supported the case
of the prosecution and has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5/ I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused all the
record of the case.
6/ From perusal of the record it appears that present offence was registered
on 21.1.2021 by Narcotics Cell, Indore and after completion of the investigation
charge sheet was filed on 11.3.2021. Thereafter the applicant remained absconded
for a long time and till now he is not arrested, therefore, prosecution has filed
charge sheet against the present applicant under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. From the
report of the Narcotics Cell, Indore it is also revealed that proceedings under
Section 82 & 83 of Cr.P.C. has also been conducted against the present applicant
and status of the applicant is of an absconding accused in this offence.
Undoubtedly applicant has been implicated in this offence on the basis of
disclosure statement of the co-accused Chenram given under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act but since the offence is registered and present applicant is still
absconding, therefore, no recovery of any article is possible from his possession.
Signature Not Verified
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the orders of this Court
SAN
Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH
in the case of Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P. vide order dated 25.2.2020 passed in
SAVNER
Date: 2022.03.29 12:54:18 PDT
M.Cr.C. No.19835/2018, in the case of Jagdish Vs. State of M.P. vide order dated
23.7.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No.26123/2019, in the case of Prithviraj, Raju @
Rajmal & Fakirchand Vs. State of M.P. vide order dated 24.2.2020 passed in
M.Cr.C. No.31992/2019 and the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of
Pulukuri Kottaya and others Vs. Emperor vide judgment dated 19.12.1946 passed
in Privy Council Appeal No.37/1946 but the applicant is absconder in this matter,
therefore, these citations are not applicable in the present case.
7/ In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, at this stage it
will not be appropriate to quash the proceedings pending against the present
applicant because applicant has every opportunity to raise these objections before
the trial Court at the appropriate stage. Therefore, at this stage interference under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not warranted.
8/ Accordingly this petition is dismissed with a direction to the trial Court
to give consideration to the material brought on record by both the parties without
being influenced by the observations made in this order.
9/ Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary
information and compliance.
C.C. as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
trilok
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Date: 2022.03.29 12:54:18 PDT
