Bhupendra Singh Karana vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 5415 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bhupendra Singh Karana vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 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 22 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7704 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    BHUPENDRA SINGH KARANA S/O SHRI GULAB
                                 SINGH KARANA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: BUSINESS SKYCITY BHIND ROAD
                                 POLICE THANA MAHARAJPURA DISTRICT
                                 GWALIOR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    SMT. MITHLESH GURJAR S/O SHRI BHUPENDRA
                                 SINGH KARANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE SKAICITY BHIND
                                 ROAD POLICE THANA MAHARAJPURA DIST.
                                 GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                        .....APPLICANTS/PETITIOENRS
                           (BY SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
                                 POLICE STATION THROUGH POLICE STATION
                                 MAHARAJPURA DISTRICT    GWALIOR   M.P.
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA S/O SHRI VISHVNATH
                                 SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 BUSINESS VILLAGE BAHUA TEHSIL MEHGAON
                                 DIST. BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI ATUL SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)

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

T h e present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred by petitioners for quashment of F.I.R. bearing

C rime No.0618 of 2021 registered at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 507 of IPC with all consequential criminal proceedings thereto.

2. It is contended on behalf of petitioners that the registration of impugned FIR is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. There are material contradictions and omissions in the contents of the complaint as well as in the impugned FIR. There are no independent witnesses in the incident and only on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, petitioners have been falsely implicated.

3. It was further contended that it is the duty of the police to conduct a

preliminary enquiry before registering the complaint or FIR, but the same has been lodged with malafide intention of the complainant merely to harass and pressurize the petitioners.

4. It was further contended that the Court can quash the criminal proceeding where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him/her/them due to private and personal grudge.

5. On these grounds, it was prayed that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned F.I.R. be quashed.

6. Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and it was submitted that from the perusal of First Information Report, commission of a cognizable offence is clearly made out, therefore, the writ petition be dismissed.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Looking to the ingredients of FIR as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, it is evident that the Court should not interfere at the initial stage as it is a matter of evidence and the criminal proceedings should not be scuttled in mid-way and the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to reliability or genuineness of the allegations made by in impugned FIR. The police has statutory right and duty under relevant provisions of CrPC to first investigate into cognizable offence as to whether any offence is made out against accused like petitioner or not.

9. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case as well as allegations levelled against petitioners and considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as stated above, at this stage, this Court doesn't find any justifiable reason to quash the impugned F.I.R. warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC, as it has to be exercised for the ends of the justice and should not be arbitrarily exercised to cut short the normal process of a criminal trial and if any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.

10. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC sans

merit and is hereby dismissed.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn*