Mahesh Khateek vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 8470 MP

                                                      1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                        BEFORE
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
               ON THE 13TH OF JUNE, 2023

         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14079 OF 2023

Between:-
 MAHESH KHATEEK S/O SHRI
 SAMLIYA KHATEEK, AGED 48
 YEARS, R/O PAHADGARH, DISTRICT
 MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                   ..... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AMIT LAHOTI AND SHRI BRAJESH TYAGI-
ADVOCATES )

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH     THROUGH     SHO,
POLICE STATION PAHADGARH,
DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
MORENA, DISTRICT MORENA.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PUSHPENDRA SINGH, HEAD
CONSTABLE, POLICE STATION
PAHADGARH, DISTRICT MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH).

                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                                                                                    2

(SHRI G.S.CHAUHAN- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR
RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2/STATE )

       This application coming on for Admission this day, the court passed
the following:

                                    ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

Instant petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR registered vide Crime No. 08/2023 by Police Station Pahadgarh, District Morena for offence under Section 25/27 of Arms Act and criminal proceedings thereto.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that due to ill intention, respondent No. 2, who is Police Head Constable, using his influence got registered the aforesaid false FIR against the petitioner, who is a meat shop owner and denied to give free meat to aforesaid Head Constable. It is further alleged that with ill intention the FIR got registered, therefore, same is liable to be rejected. In support of his submission he referred decision of Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1265/2017 decided on 27/7/2017) and this Court decision in the matter of Smt. Arti alias Madhvi Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C.No. 6747/2016 dated 22/1/2018) in support of his submission.

3. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that it can be a case of false FIR and allegations by the parties against each other and to prove their respective innocence, trial is necessary. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Heard.

5. From the pleadings, it appears that the grounds raised by petitioner to

prove his part of innocence, can only be pleaded and proved by leading evidence and thus the grounds as tried to be raised is matter of evidence and can only be tested on the anvil of cross-examination of the witnesses. Merely by referring that petitioner has been falsely implicated, no conclusion can be drawn pre-empting the controversy, looking to the fact that country made 315 bore gun was seized from his possession. Best way to reach the truth is trial; wherein, cross-examination would bring forth the exact facts.

6. Scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is very limited and it cannot be exercised sparingly under the extraordinary jurisdiction. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., 2015 Cr.L.J. (SC) 2031 has held that quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. When the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at the initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshel the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents on records but is an opinion formed prima facie.

7. So far as judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, same move in different factual realm and are not useful to the petitioner as prima facie it appears that evidence is available against the petitioner and one country made 315 bore gun alongwith one live cartridge has been seized from his possession.

7. In the case in hand when contents of FIR are seen then it appears that matter requires investigation, thereafter, after filing of charge-sheet, petitioner may plead his part of innocence by leading evidence oral as well as documentary in accordance with law. At this stage no indulgence can be shown merely on the basis of facts that petitioner has been falsely implicated. Case has to be seen on its own merits.

8. Cumulatively, petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

(Roopesh Chandra Varshney) Judge jps/-

JAI Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001,

PRAKASH st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865 c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a, pseudonym=560BC50AD082B9BE54EE290EC8CB 2193780D8357,

SOLANKI serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072A 2D8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2023.06.14 11:45:07 +05'30'