Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kuwar Vikram Singh Through His Wife ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 February, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 29th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
W.P. NO. 30221 OF 2023
BETWEEN:-
KUNWAR VIKRAM SINGH, THROUGH HIS WIFE
KAVITA SINGH, S/O. LATE SHRI RAJA BAHADUR
BALWANT SINGH JU DEV, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCCUPATION-FARMING, R/O. H. NO. 45, THE PALACE
KHAJURAHO, SHIVAJI WARD NO.7, KHAJURAHO,
DISTRICT CHHATTARPUR (M.P.)
....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHASHANK SHEKHAR - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI
SHASHWAT AWASTHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P.).
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, P.S. KHAJURAHO,
DISTRICT CHHATTARPUR (M.P.)
3. NEERAJ CHATURVEDI, S/O. SHYAM SUNDER
CHATURVEDI, R/O. JILA ADHYAKSH BHAJPA
YUVA MORCHA, CHHATTARPUR (M.P.)
4. ARVIND PATERIYA, S/O. RAGHUVEER DAYAL
PATERIYA, BJP CONTESTING CANDIDATE,
STATE CONSTITUENCY, 50, RAJNAGAR, R/O.
CHOUBEY COLONY, DISTRICT CHHATTARPUR
(M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SHRI B.D. SINGH -
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS/STATE).
(SHRI DEVANG TRIVEDI - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3)
(SHRI ADITYA AHIWASI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4).
2
............................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 18.12.2023
Pronounced on : 29.02.2024
............................................................................................................................................
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:
ORDER
The petitioner, by the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is seeking quashing of offence registered against
him vide FIR No.322/2023 on 19.11.2023 at Police Station Khajuraho,
District Chhattarpur, for the offence under Sections 307, 341, 147, 149,
294, 506 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. Alternatively, a relief has also
been claimed that investigation be handed over to C.B.I. for fair and
unbiased investigation.
2. Facts of the case as contained in FIR No.321/23 lodged by
petitioner-Kunwar Vikram Singh @ Nati Raja at Police Station
Khajuraho, District Chhattarpur on 17.11.2023, in nutshell are as under:-
2.1 On an application received on 17.11.2023 from complainant
namely Kunwar Vikram Singh @ Nati Raja, who was the contesting
candidate of Indian National Congress Legislative Assembly 50,
Rajnagar M.P. at Police Station, Khajuraho for investigating the matter
and also on receipt of complaint by the Police District Hospital,
Chhattarpur in respect of death of one Salman Khan s/o Shri Harun
Khan; a crime under Sections 302, 307, 147, 149, 294 and 506 of IPC
was found to have taken place. However, as per the said complaint, BJP
candidate Arvind Pateriya along with his supporters had murdered
Salman Khan by deliberately crushing him from their vehicles.
2.2 It is alleged in the complaint that after getting the information
about the fact that Arvind Pateriya along with his supporters were going
to distribute the money to the villagers at Chandnagar Toriya, the
complainant along with his supporters went towards Chandnagar Toriya
and tried to inform the police about such an illegal conduct of Arvind
Pateriya but when he failed to contact the police, then he sent some of
his supporters to the police station for informing the police about the
said incident. However, it is alleged in the complaint that when the
complainant along with his supporters were proceeding towards Toriya
from Snehfall Barriyal, they were forced to stop as some cattles were
sitting on the road and then 10-15 vehicles came over there and in one
of the vehicles i.e. M.P.16BC0009 Arvind Pateriya was sitting whereas
from another vehicle bearing No.MP16CB2506 his other supporters
namely Gaurav @ Vicky Baghel, Radhe Baba got down and started
abusing the complainant and his supporters. At the same time, Arvind
Pateriya, Shailendra Yadav, Abhishek Awasthi, Pushpendra Awasthi,
Sanyaj Mishra, Sandeep Agrawal, Lokpal Singh, Vikrampur, Pappu
Awasthi, President, Nagar Panchayat, Khajuraho, Mukesh Pande, Rajat
Agrawal, Nayeem Kunjra, Alakhram Durve, Bhaiya Ji Awasthi, Achnar,
Ashutosh Mishra, Prahlad Awasthi, Yesh Dega, Kapil Soni, Dinesh
Agnihotri and 10-15 other supporters started abusing complainant and
his supporters. As per the complainant, he gave them way and requested
Arvind Pateriya and his supporters to go from there but on a call given
by Arvind Pateriya, his driver and Vicky Baghel, Radhe Baba,
Pushpendra Awasthi, Sanjay Mishra, Pappu Awasthi, Lokpal Singh,
Abhishek Awasthi, Yesh Dega and others with an intention to kill them
deliberately drove their vehicles towards them very fast. Salman, one of
the supporters of the complainant was also standing on the roadside of
the fleet and in order to kill Salman they deliberately drove the vehicles
over him. In the said incident, Salman got grievous injuries and
thereafter he was taken to Chhattarpur for his treatment and
simultaneously police of Police Station, Khajuraho was also informed
about the said incident and as such, the police registered the offence
under different provisions.
2.3 That, in order to counter blast the case arising out of FIR bearing
Crime No.321/23, one FIR bearing Crime No.322/2023 was also lodged
on 19.11.2023 by one of the accused of FIR No.321/2023 namely Niraj
Chaturvedi and as such, offence got registered against present petitioner
namely Kunwar Vikram Singh @ Nati Raja and other persons under
Sections 307, 341, 147, 149, 294, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a concocted story has
been prepared by the accused persons in FIR No.322/2023 making
allegation that petitioner and other co-accused persons had stopped the
vehicles of Arvind Pateriya and his supporters with an intention to kill
them and also fired a gun shot towards Arvind Pateriya. He has further
submitted that Niraj Chaturvedi (respondent No.3) has also stated in his
complaint that the incident took place on 17.11.2023 and due to protest
at Police Station Khajuraho against the incident, he did not file any
complaint to the police. As per counsel for the petitioner, on 17.11.2023,
Arvind Pateriya (respondent No.4) appeared live on social media and
stated that he has been apprised through social media platform that a
charge of accusation of killing a person has been alleged against him by
MLA Kunwar Vikram Singh on 17.11.2023. On the same day, Arvind
Pateriya, in a press conference had stated that he has been falsely
implicated in the case.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that on 19.11.2023, a
video was released by Arvind Pateriya narrating the incident which took
place on 17.11.2023 and also acknowledging his presence at the time of
incident. It is submitted that Arvind Pateriya in all his statements given
through social media had nowhere mentioned about any attack made on
him by present petitioner namely Kunwar Vikram Singh which is
contradictory to the contents of the FIR bearing Crime No.322/2023. He
has further submitted that from the statement made by Arvind Pateriya
on social media, not narrating the incident which is mentioned in Crime
No.322/23, it is clear that the complaint made on 19.11.2023 was
nothing but a counter blast of the offence registered vide FIR
No.321/23. It is alleged that contents of FIR No.322/23 is an
afterthought and lodged to the police in order to counter the offence
registered vide FIR No.321/23. However, he has submitted that
representations were also made to the Collector and Superintendent of
Police, Chhattarpur by wife of the deceased Salman on 22.11.2023.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that from
perusal of contents of FIR No.322/23, it is clear that the same was
lodged to the police on 19.11.2023 whereas the offence had already been
registered against the respondents vide Crime No.321/23. As per counsel
for the petitioner, respondent No.4 made allegation about the crime
committed by the petitioner and other persons just to save his skin. He
has further submitted that changing version of respondent No.4 even on
social media is an admission and it clearly indicates that the offence
registered against the present petitioner vide FIR No.322/23 is a
malicious prosecution and accordingly, it is liable to be set aside. He has
further submitted that petitioner made several representations to the
authorities namely Collector, Superintendent of Police, Chhattarpur to
make proper investigation to ascertain that a false complaint was made
by respondent No.4 against him. He has submitted that along with the
representations, the petitioner has also supplied the relevant material and
evidence so as to establish that a false case got registered against him.
6. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Advocate General appearing for the
respondent/State has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioner and submitted that at this stage when investigation is going
on, the Court cannot conduct a mini trial. The witness if given a false
statement then he should also be given a proper opportunity to explain
as to why he has given different type of statement but changed statement
cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR especially at the very initial
stage. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance upon
judgements passed in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Surendra
Kori reported in (2012) 10 SCC 155, Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others (2021) 9 SCC 35, State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another Vs. Akhil Sharda and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online
SC 820 and also in case of Harsh Meena Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC Online MP 1971.
7. Counsel appearing for the other respondents have also supported
the submission of Advocate General and also submitted that it is not a
stage when FIR can be quashed.
8. Considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties and
on perusal of record, it is clear that quashing of offence registered vide
FIR No. 322/23 has been sought by the petitioner mainly on the ground
that it is nothing but a counterblast as in view of the statement made by
respondent No.4 in the social media, it is clear that the said statement is
contrary to the statement made in the said FIR. However, as has been
pointed out, the incident took place on 17.11.2023 and FIR
acknowledging the presence of respondent No.4 over the spot got
registered where the alleged mar-peet took place but the fact in respect
of death of one of the supporters of petitioner was not disclosed.
9. However, as per the submission made by counsel for the
respondents and judgements on which reliance has been placed, I am of
the opinion that this is not the proper stage when interference in the
matter is called for and FIR i.e. 322/23 can be quashed. The Supreme
Court in case of Surendra Kori (supra) has observed as under:-
"14. The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC
does not function as a court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in
several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
CrPC, though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution.
The High Court, under Section 482 CrPC, should normally refrain from
giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are
incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected
and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or
legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective
without sufficient material.
Further, in case of Kaptan Singh (supra), the Supreme Court has
observed as under:-
"9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the
High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed
the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149,
406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court
in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal
proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the
statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting
the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the
independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has
filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned
Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and
order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC On Line All 914]
passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into
consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and
even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was
at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only
are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is
disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when
the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is
filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on
different footing and the Court is required to consider the
material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage
also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High
Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter
into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate
jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in
Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of
Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine
as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or
not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can
exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held
that that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents
of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage,
the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own
inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further
observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is
further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the
investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to
examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material
as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material.
9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State
of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after
considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by
this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the
proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise
is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further
observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of
quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind Khanna [CBI v.
Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet
[State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri)
702] and in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1
SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove.
9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions
to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court
has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in
exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC."
In case of Akhil Sharda (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:-
Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears
that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is
not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of
decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding
the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into
appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered.
Further in case of Harsh Meena (supra), this court has observed as
under:-
4. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court
reported in (2019) 7 SCC 515-State by Karnatka Lokayukta, Police
Station, Bengaluru v. M.R. Hiremath wherein he has emphasised on
paragraph 25, which reads as under:--
"25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the fact that
the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under
the provisions of Section 239 CrPC. The parameters which govern
the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several
decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the
stage of considering an application for discharge the court must
proceed on the assumption that the material which has been
brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the
material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the
material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the
ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State of
T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, adverting to the earlier decisions on the
subject, this Court held : (SCC pp. 721-22, para 29)
"29. ... At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be
gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter
and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our
opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground
for presuming that the offence has been committed and not
whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To
put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have
committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its
probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the
court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed
the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further placed reliance upon the
judgment of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar passed in
CRR. No. 27/2010 - State of J&K Through:-- Ms. Asifa Padroo,
AAG v. Tanveer Ahmad Salah.
10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid view expressed by the Supreme
Court as also by this Court and taking note of the existing
circumstances, since the FIR No.322/23 contained a specific allegation
of committing crime by the present petitioner saying that he along with
persons named in the FIR, was involved in the crime; investigation is
still going on; name of the present petitioner is very much there in the
FIR and as such, it is difficult to form an opinion that the contents of the
FIR do not constitute any offence under which the case has been
registered, therefore, prima facie, the FIR at this stage cannot be
quashed. Secondly, since the investigation is at the primary stage,
therefore, it is not proper to say that the investigation is not being
conducted properly and as such, it should be handed over to some
special agency or CBI. The dispute arises out of rivalry of political
parties contesting Assembly Elections and as such, it is not proper to say
that proper investigation is not being done by the police.
11. In the result, the petition being without any substance, is hereby
dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
rao
