Pankaj Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 15758 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pankaj Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 May, 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 28 th OF MAY, 2024
                                          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 44414 of 2021

                           BETWEEN:-
                           PANKAJ SHARMA S/O MAHESH PRASAD SHARMA,
                           AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
                           R/O VILLAGE BANVEER KHEDI TEHSIL ARON
                           DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                              .....APPLICANT
                           (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH TIWARI- ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
                                 POLICE STATION P.S. ARON (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    HARIKISHAN AHIRWAR S/O SHRI CHIROJA
                                 AHIRWAR VILLAGE BANVEER KHEDI TEHSIL
                                 ARON, DISTRICT- GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI SUSHANT TIWARI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR RESPONDENT
                           NO.1 AND NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.-2 THOUGH SERVED AND
                           REPRESENTED)

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

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of FIR dated 29.03.2020 bearing crime No.232/2020 registered at Police Station Aron District Bhind for the offence punishable under Section 295, 147, 149, 506, 427 of IPC and 3 (1)(n), 3(1)(/k) and 3(1)(n) of SC/ST Act.

2. As per prosecution case, people of Ahirwar Society installed a five

feet tall statue of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar on the government land on Guna Road. On 29.03.2020 in the midnight, complainant who lying on bed 50 m. away from the statue, saw in the light of bulb on the electric pole that petitioner with five other named accused were having stones in their hands and were damaging the statue. On stopping, they abused and threatened him for life. When one Hariram came, they fled away towards village. Complainant examined the statue in morning and thereafter reported the matter to police in day time as no conveyance was available in night.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land on which the statue is installed, is a government land. Since petitioner and his

family members filed a complaint against the present complainant against his illegal action of encroachment over charnoi land, complainant lodged false FIR to settle score against the petitioner. It is further submitted that present is the case in which criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or 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 and therefore the FIR deserve to be quashed. It was further submitted that petitioner had reported the authorities about the illegal encroachment over the petitioner's land as well as government land of Charnoi and had also informed about the threat that he will be falsely implicated in the case under SC/ ST Act, hough it was informed to the Police by the Tehsildar, inspite of it Police had registered the case on the false complaint of the respondent.

4. It is further submitted that the material placed before this Court by the petitioner is official record of the Tahsildar. These documents cannot be refuted by the complainant or by the prosecution. The documents submitted by the

petitioner are indubitable sterling and impeccable and can be relied for testing the bonafide of the FIR. It is further submitted that documents submitted by the petitioners are sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, and to persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations in FIR as false. It is further submitted that the enquiry conducted by the higher officer of the Police itself establish that the FIR lodged against the petitioner is false and has been lodge to pressurize the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is sincere agriculturist and he has no criminal history. Since he had reported the encroachment by the complainant over his own land and on the government land to the government authorities as a counterblast the instant FIR had been lodged. Also he is proceeding in to recover his possession through legal means i.e. by filing a civil suit. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer is made to quash the impugned FIR.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor 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, present petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The parameters for quashing an FIR have been laid down by a two-

Judge 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

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, c learly 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."

8. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, if compliance report is seen, it appears that on 27.12.2019, the petitioner had preferred a complaint before Sub-Divisional Officer alleging that 50 persons of Ahirwar caste are bent upon to encroach over his private land situated at Village Banvirkhedi Tehsil Aron District Guna and they also threatened the petitioner. The petitioner raised apprehension that they would also implicate him in false criminal case. It was also alleged in the complaint that all these 50 persons had also encroached over the Government Charnoi land which is situated adjacent to the private land of petitioner. Similar allegations were also levelled in another complaint preferred before Sub Divisional Officer Tehsil Aron District Guna and the Collector Guna.

9. A bare perusal of the said complaints reveals that the said complaints were preferred prior to registration of impugned FIR. Thus, the present FIR can be said to be registered as a counter-blast to the said complaints. The matter involves civil overtones and the present FIR has been lodged just to give criminal colour to a civil dispute. Thus, in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in sub-clause 7 of Para 102 of the judgment rendered in the case of Bhajanlal (supra), this Court in inclined to quash the impugned FIR.

10. Consequently, present petition stands allowed. FIR dated 29.03.2020 bearing crime No.232/2020 registered at Police Station Aron District Bhind for the offence punishable under Section 295, 147, 149, 506, 427 of IPC and 3 (1)(n), 3(1)(/k) and 3(1)(n) of SC/ST Act so far as it relates to present

petitioner stands quashed.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE ojha