Manish vs State Of Mp
2022 Latest Caselaw 4585 MP

                                   1



                HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        BENCH GWALIOR

            SB: Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

                        MCRC 34358 of 2021
                     Manish vs. State of MP and Anr.

                ==============================
Shri Devansh Mishra, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Purushottam Tanwar, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/ State.
             ==============================
Reserved on                                 25/03/2022
Whether approved for reporting             ......../........
            ==============================
                                ORDER

( Passed on 31/03/2022) Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J:-

The present petition u/S. 482 of CrPC has been filed by petitioner

for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.203 of 2019 registered at Police

Station Karariya Chaurah, District Vidisha for offences punishable

under Sections 75, 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, Sections 14, 3 of the Child Labour (Prohibition &

Regulation) Act, Section 68 of Mines Act and Section 16 of Bonded

Labour System (Abolition) Act as well as other subsequent proceedings

pending before the Court of JMFC, Vidisha in connection with RCT No.

677 of 2020.

(2) Facts in brief are that on 06/12/20219, complainant Umesh Panhi

lodged a report at Police Station City, Vidisha, alleging therein that a

team of National Commission for Protection of Children Rights

(NCPCR) along with police personnel went to village Jafarkhedi,

Vidisha and during inspection by said team it was found that large

number of children below 14 years of age, i.e. Dhanraj aged around 12

years, Hemant aged around 12 years three months and Abhishek aged

around 13 years, all residents of village Jafarkhedi and one Daulat, aged

around 13 years resident of Village Nimkhiriya are working in an

illegal mines. On enquiry, it was found that present petitioner is

operating an illegal mines by engaging the aforesaid children in the

mines. Thereafter, the statements of the children were recorded. On the

complaint filed by respondent No.2 complainant, the impugned FIR has

been lodged and after completion of investigation and other formalities,

the police filed charge sheet before the Court of JMFC under the

aforesaid Sections.

(3) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that cognizance of

offence taken by the police in the proceedings is contrary to law and the

evidence recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, the children have

specifically stated that they are working under instructions of one co-

accused Manoj Jain and there is no allegation against present petitioner

and petitioner has falsely been implicated. Only on the basis of

memorandum of co-accused Manoj Jain, petitioner has been implicate.

Neither any lease nor any work of mining was allotted to the petitioner

and as per the report of revenue authorities, the alleged place of

occurrence is a Government land and the petitioner has not played any

vital role in functioning the mining activities and no incriminating

materials have been seized from the possession of the petitioner from

the site of crime. It is further contended that as per the impugned FIR,

the statements of children recorded under Section 161 of CrPC create a

serious doubt. Hence, it is prayed that impugned FIR as well as other

criminal proceedings initiated in connection with said Crime be

quashed. In support of his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has

relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in

Shafiya Khan alias Shakuntala Prajapati vs. State of UP and

Another, passed in Criminal Appeal No(s). 200 of 2022 on 10 th

February, 2022.

(4) On the other hand, the counsel for the State opposed the petition

and prayed for its rejection.

(5) Scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC for

quashment of FIR/charge-sheet and the categories of cases where the

High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable

offences to prevent the abuse of process of any Court otherwise to

secure the ends of justice, were set out in detail in the case of State of

Haryana vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) 335) as under:-

''(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 institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or 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."

(6) Similarly, this Court has no jurisdiction to appreciate evidence of

proceedings u/S. 482 of Code, because whether there are contradictions

or/and inconsistencies either in FIR or complaint or in statements of

witnesses like the children is essentially an issue relating to appreciation

of evidence and same can be gone into by Magistrate concerned during

trial when entire evidence is adduced by the parties.

(7) The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy vs

The State off Andhra Pradesh passed on 21st January, 2020 in Criminal

Appeal No.1934 of 2019 has observed that the Court does not have to

delve deep into probative value of evidence regarding charge. It has only

to see if a prima facie case has been made out. The veracity of

deposition or the material is a matter of trial and not required to be

examined while framing the charge. It was further observed by Hon'ble

Apex Court that the veracity and genuineness of deposition made by the

witnesses like the children in the present matter is a question of trial and

need not be determined at the time of framing of charge. Appreciation of

evidence on merit is to be done by the Court concerned only after

charges have been framed and trial has commenced. However, for the

purpose of framing of charge, the Court needs to prima facie determine

that there exists sufficient material for commencement of trial.

(8) It is settled principle of law that this Court cannot embark upon

the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed u/S 482

of CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. If prima facie a case is

made out disclosing ingredients of offences alleged against the accused,

the Court cannot quash criminal proceedings. It is needless to observe

that perusal of impugned FIR and the materials collected by IO on the

basis of which, charge sheet has been submitted, makes out a prima

facie case against accused at this stage and there appears to be sufficient

ground for proceeding against accused. On perusal of FIR as well as

statements of witnesses like the children goes to show that prima facie

case for alleged offence is made out against petitioner. This Court has no

jurisdiction to appreciate evidence of proceedings u/S. 482 of CrPC

because whether there are contradictions and/or inconsistencies either in

impugned FIR or complaint or in statements of witnesses like the

children, is an essential issue relating to appreciation of evidence and

same can be gone into by the Magistrate concerned during the trial when

entire evidence is adduced by the parties. However, in the present case,

the said stage is yet to come.

(9) Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case as

well as allegations levelled against the present petitioner and

considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as stated above, at

this stage, I do not find any justification to quash impugned FIR or

charge-sheet or proceedings initiated against the petitioner arising out of

said Crime. This Court, at this stage, is not under an obligation to go

into the matter or examine either correctness or genuineness of

impugned FIR or complaint or statements of complainant and his

witnesses. Hence, this petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

(10) Before parting with this order, this Court feels it appropriate to

issue a word of caution that observations in this order have been made

by the Court considering limited scope of interference. The Court below

is expected to expedite the trial strictly in accordance with evidence

which would come on record without getting prejudiced by any of

observations made by this Court in this order.

(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge

MKB

Digitally signed by MAHENDRA BARIK Date: 2022.04.04 10:56:20 +05'30'