Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammad Islam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 August, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 9th OF AUGUST, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10546 of 2024
MOHAMMAD ISLAM AND ANOTHER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raghuwanshi learned Senior Counsel with Shri Vijay
Kumar Jha - Advocates for the petitioners.
Shri Summer Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Present petition under Section 482 of the CrPC is preferred for
quashment of the FIR registered against the petitioner vide crime No.
251/2023 under Section 34(1)(A), 34(2) of MP Excise Act for alleged
transportation of consignment of liquor bottles to the Defence Canteen
Bangalore on 03.11.2023 without having the route permit from the places
of State of Madhya Pradesh from where the vehicle was supposed to pass
and reach the destination that was Bangalore.
2. Learned Senior Counsel along with V.K. Jha brought to the notice of
this Court one clarification issued by Assistant Excise Commissioner
Excise department UP dated 18.11.2023 whereby, he has clarified that the
route permit executed and granted by Deputy Excise Commissioner
Bangaluru, Urban District 07, Bengaluru bearing
No.IMP/IML/78/PMI/17245/2023-24 issued on 30.10.2023 was valid for
30 days till 28.11.2023 which was earlier routed through Rampur-Bareilly-
Farrukhabad- Itbaudi Checkpost- Plasmir - Unigya Malegon Nagar-
Solapur - Chitradurga - Tumkur- Jhalki, has been modified and the stations
as mentioned below shall be read in the route mentioned in the export pass
(FLB-11) no-D-30-2023-24-FL3-9873 dtd 31.10.23 i.e. Bhind- Gwalior -
Indore - Sendhwa generated against the import permit bearing
no.IMP/IML/78/PMI/17245/2023-24.
3. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that admittedly, the said
consignment was meant for Canteen Store Department Bangaluru and it
was due to inadvertence that the proper route was not mentioned in the
permit granted, which was later on clarified, therefore, the registration of
the crime vide crime No.251/2023 deserves to be quashed as it was
registered due to inadvertant mistake committed by the Permit Issuing
Authority.
4. It was further argued by the learned senior counsel that while
hearing bail petition filed on behalf of present petitioners vide MCRC
No.54872/2023, a status report with regard to the clarification dated
18.11.2023, was filed on behalf of the State on 21.12.2023 and the factum
of issuance of said clarification was admitted by the State itself which
further makes it clear that the registration of the crime was under some
misconception and as on date since the said clarification is already on
record and also admitted by the State, the registration of the crime against
the present petitioners deserves to be quashed.
5. On the strength of the aforesaid arguments, it was submitted that the
FIR registered vide Crime No.251/2023 and further proceedings in
pursuance thereof be quashed and the petitioners herein be exonerated
from the charges.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that on the date of
registration of the crime i.e. 03.11.2023 admittedly, the vehicle in which
the consignment was transported from UP to Bangaluru, the permit
through places in Madhya Pradesh was not mentioned, therefore, the said
vehicle was rightly apprehended and the crime was rightly registered. It
was further submitted that the said registration of the crime on account of
clarification, later on, made by the Excise Department, U.P. would be of
no avail and would be the matter of evidence that whether the said
clarification was ever issued by the said department. It was prayed that
present petition being devoid of merits be dismissed.
7. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the record, this
Court finds that the State had already verified the factum of issuance of
clarification dated 18.11.2023 in M.CrC. No.54872/2023 with regard to
the route permit issued by the department for carrying the contraband
meant for the purpose of Defence Canteen. In the said clarification letter,
it was specifically mentioned that the route earlier mentioned in the permit
bearing no.IMP/IML/78/PMI/17245/2023-24 shall also read the districts
of State of Madhya Pradesh, from where the said vehicle shall pass which
included Bhind-Gwalior-Indore-Sendhwa.
8. Once the said route permit had been clarified by the Authorities
themselves, from where the vehicle was supposed to pass then it cannot be
said that the vehicle transporting the contraband from UP to Bangaluru
was in contravention of the permit conditions.
9. The parameters for quashing an FIR have been laid down by a two
Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 as under:-
"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 7 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 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 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."
10. In the case Mahmood Ali and others Vs. State of U.P. And others
passed on 08.08.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2341/2023, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has observed that:
At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court
owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely. We say so because once the complainant decides
to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure
that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the
necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that
the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that
they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many
other attending circumstances emerging from the record of
the case over and above the averments and, if need be,
with due care and circumspection try to read in between
the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution
need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is
empowered to take into account the overall circumstances
leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as
the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take
for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been
registered over a period of time. It is in the background of
such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs
assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of
wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as
alleged.
11. In the aforesaid judgment, it was observed that when an accused
approaches the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed,
essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance,
then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the
FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will
not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case
over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection, try to read in between the lines.
12. Considering in the totality the facts and circumstances of the case
and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases
of Bhajanlal (supra) and Mehmood Ali (supra), this petition under
section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
13. Consequently, F.I.R. Dated 03.11.2023 bearing crime No.251/2023
registered at Police Station Excise Department Circle No.2 District Bhind
(M.P.) for the offene under Sections 34(1)(A), 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act
against the present petitioners stand quashed.
14. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and disposed of in
above terms.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Vpn/-
