Hari Om Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 15129 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Hari Om Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 May, 2024

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                            1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                ON THE 21st OF MAY, 2024
            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8686 of 2024

BETWEEN:-

1.    HARI OM GUPTA S/O LATE SHRI N.P.
      GUPTA,      AGED   ABOUT   68  YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: RETIRED GOVT. OFFICER,
      R/O E-8/37, BASANT KUNJ ARERA COLONY,
      SHAHPURA, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
      PRADESH)
2.    ROHIT GUPTA(AGRAWAL) S/O SHRI
      HARIOM GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION:   BUSINESS   R/O E-8/37,
      BASANT KUNJ ARERA COLONY SHAHPURA
      DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.    VINAY KUMAR UIKEY S/O LATE SHRI
      GURUDAYAL UIKEY, AGED ABOUT 26
      YEARS, R/O H.NO. 3, WARD NO 11, VILLAGE
      NAYAPURA,     GOHARGANJ,       DISTRICT
      RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                .....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI UTKARSH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE )

AND

1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
      THROUGH POLICE STATION SHAHPURA
      BHOPAL   CITY, BHOPAL   (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    SMT. KANCHAN MISHRA W/O SHRI
      ARVIND MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: POSTED AS MANAGER,
      CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA R/O E-8/43,
      BASANT    KUNJ,   ARERA    COLONY,
                                     2


         SHAHPURA, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
         PRADESH)
                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
   (SHRI ROHIT JAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1/ STATE
   AND SHRI GAURAV TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 2 )

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

1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"It is, therefore, in the light of aforesaid factual matrix and legal position most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 28.12.2022 (Annexure-P/1) and all consequential ( including entire trial pending before Shri Priyank Dubey, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal which has commenced) in the interest of justice."

2. It is submitted by counsel for the applicants that according to the prosecution case, the complainant lodged an FIR on the allegations that she was raising construction over the plot owned by her in Basant Kunj, Shahpura, Bhopal. On 3.6.2022 at 10 AM when she went to see under- constructed house, then she found that applicant no.1 was throwing bricks, household articles as well as a green net which was installed in the house and was shouting that the said place is for parking of his vehicle. The complainant replied that the land belongs to her. Because of the act of the applicant no.1, bricks which were kept there were broken and green net was cut by applicant no.1 by a scissor. On account of objection by the

complainant, applicant no.1 started abusing filthily. When she tried to convince him and requested him to not to abuse her, then his both sons, Rohit Gupta and his brother came there and they all started abusing her filthily which was to her annoyance. She was continuously requesting not to abuse her but those persons did not stop and threw a challenge and she may do whatever she wants and they will deal with the matter. They also extended a threat that if FIR is lodged, then it would not be good for her and accordingly, it was alleged that she has an apprehension of threat of her own life and even in the future, she would suffer attacks. In the meanwhile, her husband also reached on the spot. The entire incident was narrated by her to her husband and incident has also been seen by the workers who were working over there and the green net was installed on the instructions of the officers of the Municipal Corporation.

3. The police after recording the statements filed the charge sheet against applicants. It was submitted by counsel for the applicants that applicant no.1 is the President of Basant Kunj Welfare Society. Since, the complainant was intending to cut trees and had also blocked the drain which was constructed by the Municipal Corporation about 20 years back, therefore, he was making continuous complaints to different authorities and to settle score, a false FIR has been lodged. Counsel for the applicants has also relied upon a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati vs. State of U.P. and another, decided on 10.2.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.200 of 2022.

4. Per it is submitted by counsel for the State that the allegations made in the FIR as well as, as contained in the charge sheets prima facie make out an offence under sections 294, 506 Part-I and 427 of IPC.

5. Shri Gaurav Tiwari, counsel for respondent no. 2 initially made a statement that the complainant does not wish to prosecute the FIR. However, fairly conceded that no application for compromise has been filed. Accordingly, counsel for the applicants was directed to argue on merits.

6. After conclusion of arguments it was once again submitted by Shri Utkarsh Agrawal that even the complainant does not wish to prosecute her FIR. In reply, it was submitted by Shri Gaurav Tiwari that in fact, the complainant was pressurized by the applicants to such an extent that even she herself has got her transferred. Thus, it is submitted that her statement of withdrawal of FIR is not voluntarily.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. Applicants have filed a copy of the complaint made by one engineer N. C. Chopra to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal dated 10.8.2021 which reads as under :-

jft-ua- 2461/30-09-1994

ÞclUr dqat csyQs;j lkslk;Vh

bZ&8@37] clUr dqat] Hkksiky- fiu 462039] 0755&2562183

dzekad 9121 fnukad 10-8-21

çfr

vk;qä] uxj fuxEk] Hkksiky ¼e/;çns'k½

fo"k;& okMZ Øekad&48 tksu Øekad&9 ds IykV u-&62 ds Hkou fuekZ.k esa 'kkldh; ukyh ,oa gjs isMks dh lqj{kk ckcr A

egksn;]

uxj fuxe tksu Øekad 9 ds okMZ Øekad 48 IykV dekad 62 tks Jh vjfoUn feJk dk gS ds }kjk cuk;s tk jgs edku ds fy;s 'kkldh; Hkweh ij yxs pkj gjs isM+ dkVus ,oa uxj fuex dh ukyh ij Hkh Hkw[k.M dk Hkkx gksus ls ukyh cUn djus dh dk;Zokgh dh tk jgh gS tks voS/kkfud gSA gkmflax cksMZ }kjk fn;s IykVks esa ,d rjQ gh njoktk fudkl dh O;oLFkk çLrkfor gS A

vr% IykV Øekad 62 esa Hkou fuekZ.k gsrq nh xbZ vuqefr esa lq/kkj dj ,oa gjs isM+ks dh lqj{kk ds funsZ'k çLrkfor djus dk d"V djs A

vHkh fuekZ.k py jgk gSA uxj fuxe dh ukyh rksMdj mlesa fiyj cuk;s tk jgs gSA

lknjA

bath ,u-lh- pksiMk-

E 8@36 olUr dqt] vjsjk d‚yksuh Hkksiky 9993004060

9. From plain reading of this complaint, it is clear that the drain which was constructed by the Municipal Corporation is situated on the land belonging to the complainant. Accordingly, counsel for the applicants was directed to explain as to whether a public drain catering the needs of the residents of the society can be constructed over the private land belonging to one of the plot holders or not.

10. It is well established principle of law that right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The Corporation cannot construct a drain on the land belonging to the plot holders. If the residents of the colony were interested in the existence of the said drain, then they should have jointly purchased the property or should have purchased the area where the public drain has been constructed, but neither the member of the society nor the Municipal

Corporation can construct a drain on the land belonging to the complainant.

11. Even in the letter or notice sent to the husband of complainant on 29.4.2022, it was alleged that a 2 ft. wide drain constructed by the Corporation has been blocked and it was alleged that the said construction was made about 20 years back and on account of blockage of the drain, there is every possibility of accumulation of the water in the society. Thus, it is clear that even if the allegations which are made by the applicants are considered, the same cannot be said to be a bona fide defense to object construction of the house on the land belonging to the complainant. Furthermore, it appears that the society members or the applicants had pressurized the complainant to withdraw the FIR.

12. Be that whatever it may be.

13. It is well established principle of law that this Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash the FIR only if uncontroverted allegations do not make out an offence. This Court has already reproduced the FIR and the uncontroverted allegations clearly indicate that applicant no. 1 was allegedly parking his vehicle on the place which belongs to the complainant. It is not the case of applicant no.1 that he was parking his car on his own property. His only ground of contention is mala fide and the complaints made by applicant no.1 have already been considered in detail. Even if the complainant was raising any construction contrary to the sanctioned map, then the applicants could have approached the Municipal Corporation under Section 307 of Municipal Corporation Act but they cannot take the law in their own hands.

14. The Supreme Court in Shafiya Khan (supra) has held that it was not open for the Court to embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR but at least there has to be some factual supporting material for what has been alleged in the FIR. A word of caution has also been given by the Supreme Court that power of quashing of criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases and it is not justified for the Court to embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. This Court has already considered the defense taken by the applicants in their application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

15. Thus, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, specifically the conduct of the applicants in pressurizing the complainant, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out for interfering in the matter.

16.Application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=PRINCIPAL BENCH INDORE, 2.5.4.20=a650f9cd964b96221568096ac01ab1bf019e0b76f6fc652f893c6324a2f64a5a, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=627378D3EE51220F5E81130EECF5ABBEC55EBB6B78033E5FF10402B19143AD99, cn=JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 2024.05.21 19:53:10 +05'30'

JP