Amarpal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13959 MP

                                                              1
                           IN      THE         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                                                ON THE 25 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 15461 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          AMARPAL SINGH S/O SHRI TEJ BALI SINGH, AGED
                          ABOUT   58  YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVERNMENT
                          EMPLOYEE R/O HIG 421 NEW HOUSING BOARD
                          COLONY SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI ADITYA ADHIWASI - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 POLICE STATION JAISINGH NAGAR DISTRICT
                                 SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.     KHUSBOO VERMA D/O SURENDRA VERMA R/o
                                 JODAURI, BAIKUNTHPUR REWA (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI ALOK AGNIHOTRI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
                          (BY SHRI SANKALP KOCHAR - ADVOCATE)

                                 Reserved on :-02/08/2023
                                 Delivered on :-25/08/2023
                                 Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                               ORDER

With the consent of counsel for parties, matter is heard finally. This petition is under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following relief:-

Signature Not Verified (1) Please to call for entire record of the crime No.362/2023 from the Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 8/25/2023 12:29:06 PM

respondent.

(2) A writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued to quash the FIR No.362/2023 lodged by the complainant.

(3) To pass such order as may deem fit under the circumstances of the case.

2. From the relief claimed in the petition, it is clear that main grievance of the petitioner is against the crime registered against him vide Crime No.362/2023 at Police Station-Jaisinghnagar under Section 490, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B of IPC.

3. The challenge is made mainly on the ground that the petitioner being

an IAS officer has wrongly been implicated in the alleged offence whereas he has not committed any offence and if the contents of FIR are even considered to be true on its face value the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioner.

4. As per the facts of case, the complainant was allotted a petrol pump (SC category) of Bharat Petroleum on State Highway No.9 between Mildstone 119 to 123 District Shahdol. The complainant did not have the requisite experience for running the same, therefore, she sought guidance from the petitioner. The petitioner assured her to provide all necessary help and on his assurance, complainant handed over the amount so as to get the petrol pump constructed. Consequently, the petitioner called one Tarunendra Sharma who is co-accused in this matter and also called the complainant and arranged a meeting between them. He apprised the complainant that Tarunendra Sharma would raise the construction of petrol pump because he is very experienced businessman of this field and is running several petrol pumps. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 8/25/2023 12:29:06 PM

5 . According to the contents of FIR, at the relevant point of time complainant was pregnant and not physically fit to manage the affairs of petrol pump and as such Tarundndra Sharma called her and took her signatures on several papers. As per the complainant, she was not aware as to on what papers her signatures have been obtained and where those documents would be used but according to her those papers have been misused by Tarunendra Sharma. It is alleged that on the basis of said documents, Tarunendra Sharma had taken over the management of the petrol pump and without the consent of the complainant he was running the same. He had also taken petrol of Rs.19,70,000/- from Bharat Petroleum and when complainant returned back after her medical recovery. Tarunendra Sharma has threatened her that if she made a complaint to anybody, the dealership of petrol pump would get cancelled. Thereafter, complainant lodged a complaint to the police levelling allegation against Tarunendra Sharma that he fraudulently took over the management of her petrol pump, running the same and not returning it to her.

6 . Counsel for the petitioner submits that from the statement of complainant and material collected by the prosecution, it is clear that there is nothing against the petitioner and, therefore, FIR in his respect is required to be quashed. He submits that registration of case against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law. He further submits that an enquiry report was

als o submitted before the Superintendent of Police, Shahdol that too on a complaint made by the complainant in which also nothing is found against the petitioner. He submits that even in the complaint made by the complainant i.e. available on record as (Annexure-D-4) filed by the respondent no.2 along with the application nothing is against the petitioner. He further submits that from the

Signature Not Verified contents of FIR, it is clear that there was no allegation of committing any type Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 8/25/2023 12:29:06 PM

of crime. He submits that if any dispute is existing that would be between complainant and co-accusd-Tarunendra Sharma but petitioner has unnecessarily been implicated. His only role as has been ascribed by the complainant is that he introduced her to Tarunendra Shama who is an experienced person in the field of running the petrol pumps. Even, he was not the party to that transaction.

7. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon an order passed by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, wherein the Supreme Court has laid down the guideline as to under which circumstance the High Court can interfere and exercise the power provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and also under Section 226 of Constitution of India and can quash the FIR. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment reported in 2022 SCC online 1634 (Ramesh Chandra Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others).

8 On the other hand, Shri Kochar counsel for the intervenor has tried to establish that the petitioner has also played an important role in the alleged offence. He submits that investigation is still going on and even Tarunendra Sharma is still absconding, therefore, unless he is arrested it would not be clear as to what role actually has been played by the petitioner. He further submits that investigation is going on and at this stage when charge sheet-has not been filed, it is not proper for this Court to interfere in the matter and quash the FIR. H e has placed reliance in State of Timil Nadu Vs. S.Martin and others reported in 2018(5) SCC 718, State of Bihar and another Vs. KJD Singh reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 63, Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi and others, 1999 (3) SCC 259, Deepak Kumar Yadav and others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another, passed in M.Cr.C.No.28935/2021, Ankit Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 8/25/2023 12:29:06 PM

Shrivastava and another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another, M.Cr.C.No.40406/2020.

9. Counsel for State has also supported the stand taken by counsel for intervenor and tried to establish a case against the petitioner and read over the case diary and submitted that the allegations made by the complainant are sufficient to constitute an offence against the petitioner.

10. I have heard the submissions made by counsel for parties and perused the record.

11. I find substance in the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

12. From perusal of complaint made by the complainant and contents of FIR, it is clear that FIR is nothing but a reproduction of written complaint made by the complainant and from its face value it is clear that role of the petitioner is very limited in the alleged crime. He has only arranged meeting of complainant with co-accused Tarunendra Sharma thinking that his experience would provide proper guidance to the complainant. From the contents of FIR, it is clear that the petrol pump was constructed and it started functioning, meaning thereby the petitioner's role was limited and till he was in picture no offence was committed. The grievance of the complainant is not against the petitioner but she has made allegation against co-accused Tarunendra Sharma. Even in the statement of complainant recorded by the police, there is nothing against the petitioner and as per the complainant she has handed over some money to the present petitioner for getting petrol pump constructed and that has been constructed. Thereafter, complainant and co-accused Tarunendra Sharma has made some deal and transaction and role of the petitioner ended. Nothing has been alleged against the petitioner by the complainant that he under the garb of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 8/25/2023 12:29:06 PM

construction took money and not invested the same in construction.

1 3 . The petitioner has infact helped the complainant. The Additional Commissioner of Police, Shahdol has also conducted an enquiry and submitted a report before the Superintendent of Police, revealing that Tarunendra Sharma was managing the affair of the petrol pump and there was some agreement executed between complainant and Tarunendra Sharma. As per the material available and collected by the prosecution, no case is made out against the petitioner.

1 4 . I have seen the judgments on which the respondent has placed reliance and there is no dispute that normally the Court should not interfere and quash the FIR at the stage when charge sheet has not been filed. The Supreme Court and even this court in number of occasion have expressed the view that claim for quashing FIR should be entertained only after the charge-sheet has been filed but in my opinion there is no restriction for the High Court to exercise the power for quashing of FIR in a petition filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C or under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

15. The Supreme Court in case of Bhajanlal (supra) in paragraph 108 has held as under :-

"108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 8/25/2023 12:29:06 PM

inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(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 wh ic h 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 the 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."

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 8/25/2023 12:29:06 PM

16. In case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and another Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and another in a Criminal Appeal No.1395/2018 arising out of SLP (CRL) no.3730/2016 the Supreme Court has considered the law laid down in case of Bhajanlal (supra) and also dealt with situation as to when inherent power of High Court can be exercised under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Relevant paragraphs 9, 16, 17 and 26 are reproduced hereinbelow :-

9 . The High Court, however, disposed of the Appellants' petition filed under Section 482 on the ground that the petition has been filed pre-maturely as the case is still at the stage of investigation. The High Court directed the investigation to proceed and further d irec ted the Appellants to join the investigation. Appellants thereafter preferred the present appeal by way of Special Leave Petition in this Court. In the present appeal, this Court on the prima facie view of the matter protected the Appellants from arrest and directed that the investigation be continued. Accordingly, the Respondent No.1 carried out investigation and has filed a report under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, Delhi. Since, the police have now submitted a charge sheet, Appellants have additionally filed amendment application seeking to incorporate prayer for quashing of charge sheet in addition to prayer for quashing of the FIR.

16. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 Cr. P.C and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Section 482 of Cr.P.C reads as follows: - "482. Saving of inherent power of the High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 8/25/2023 12:29:06 PM

17. There is nothing in the words of this Section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C even when the discharge application is pending (2011) 7 SCC 59 with the trial c o urt. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the allegations have materialized into a charge sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.

(emphasis supplied)

26. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors.5, this Court has set out the categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised. Para 102 of the judgment reads as follows: -

4 2006 (6) SCC 736 5 (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 8/25/2023 12:29:06 PM

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 o f the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (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 the concerned Act, 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."

17. In the present case also, the petitioner is an IAS officer and from the contents of FIR and written complaint it is clear that no offence is made out against the petitioner. Not only this, but it has also been informed to the Court that co-accused Tarunedra Sharma has also been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court in M.Cr.C.No.32297/2023 vide order dated 07/08/2022. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 8/25/2023 12:29:06 PM

18 Accordingly, it cannot be said that co-accused is an absconder. The Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Mohataa (supra) has very categorically observed that "indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the allegations have materialized into a charge-sheet. On the contrary, it could be said that abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent the abuse of process of law

19. Thus, in my opinion, the implication of the present petitioner in the alleged offence is nothing but an abuse of process of law and his implication will ruin his whole carrier that too when he has not played any role in the alleged offence. This is a fit case in which the Court can exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing FIR and as such petition is allowed. FIR registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.362/2023 is hereby quashed.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE sushma

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 8/25/2023 12:29:06 PM