Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hansraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:531
1 MCRC-53670-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 53670 of 2024
HANSRAJ AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhashkar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri H.S.Rathore, learned Government Advocate for the State.
HEARD ON : 17.12.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 08.01.2025
ORDER
1.The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of
CrPC/528 of BNSS for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.193/2024, dated
13/10/2024 registered at P.S. Narayangarh, District Mandsaur, for offence
u/s 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5), 117(2) of the BNS, 2023.
2. Prosecution story in nutshell is that on 28.9.2024, at about 01:19
pm, the complainant alongwith Sourabh and Pawan appeared in police
station and reported that on the same day they have gone to talk with
petitioner as to why he is talking against them on the issue of election.
Thereafter, the petitioner has used filthy language and in the meantime
another person Jitendra came and both have beaten the injured persons and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:531
2 MCRC-53670-2024
the complainant has received injury on his finger of right hand and he has
also received other injury on his body. On the report filed by the
complainant, FIR bearing Crime No.193/2024, dated 13/10/2024 has been
registered at P.S. Narayangarh, District Mandsaur, for offence u/s 296,
115(2), 351(3), 3(5), 117(2) of the BNSS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant
has neither beaten the injured persons nor abused them. Actually, it is the
complainant party who has assaulted the applicant brutally. The petitioner
himself has been made victim of mob lynching and in this regard, the
applicant has also lodged FIR against the complainant party bearing crime
No. 192/22024 and the present FIR was lodged thereafter for their defence
only. Some photographs are also annexed with the file for showing the fact
of mob lynching. It is also alleged that the FIR does not constitute cognizable
offence and this case is filed only to take revenge. This Court is required to
exercise the extra ordinary power predicated under Section 528 of BNSS and
prays for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.193/2024. He further placed
reliance in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijiya Satardekar reported as (2008) 14 SCC and in
the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer and submitted that there is sufficient material available on record
against the applicant The contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant
can be considered by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the FIR was correctly
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:531
3 MCRC-53670-2024
lodged, therefore, he prays for rejection of this petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the both the parties.
6. In view of the rival submissions, I have gone through the record.
7. In this case, MLC has also been conducted regarding injuries
received by injured persons. There is a chance of cross-case between both
the parties. In view of FIR, statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC of
injured persons and the MLC report of the injured persons, there is prima
facie material available against the petitioner on the record, therefore, it
cannot be envisaged at this stage that the cross FIR has been made only for
creating defence or taking vengeance or revenge from the opposite party. it is
pertinent to mention here that at this stage, this Court is not inclined to
ponder upon chances of conviction or acquittal.
8. In so far as the powers conferred under Section 528 of BNSS
(Section 482 of Cr.P.C) is concerned it is also well settled that Section 528 of
BNSS can only be exercised sparingly in the in rarest of the rare cases where
ends of justice demands. It can be used only to prevent the abuse of process
of law and to secure the ends of justice. In the case of State of W.B. vs.
Narayan K. Patodia [AIR 2000 SC 405], the Hon'ble Apex Court ordained
that "Inherent powers of the High Court as recognized in Section 482 of the
Code are reserved to be used "to give effect to any orders under the Code, or
to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:531
4 MCRC-53670-2024
9. In the case of Janata Dal vs H.S. Chowdhary And Ors. reported in
(1992) 4 SCC 305 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"132 The criminal Courts are clothed with inherent
power to make such orders as may be necessary for the
ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted and
undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily
exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases,
ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for
the administration of which alone the Courts exist. The
powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482
of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the
power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must
be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this
power is based on sound principles."
135 This inherent power conferred by Section 482 of
the Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of
a State should normally retrain from giving a premature
decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely
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 great
magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective
without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast
rule can be laid down in regard to the cases in which the
High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to
quashing the proceedings at any stage."
10. Learned Counsel for applicant also relied upon the case of State of
Haryana and another Vs. Bhajanlal 1992 SCC (CRI) 426 and others . The
view of Hon'ble Apex Court is required to be quoted in this regard.
"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 Art. 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, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:531
5 MCRC-53670-2024
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 NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9092/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/05/2024 undefined 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 noncognizable offence, no investigation
is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under sec. 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 NEUTRAL
CITATION R/CR.MA/9092/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/05/2024
undefined with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge."
11. In view of the aforesaid guidelines, the matter has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:531
6 MCRC-53670-2024
considered. At this stage, it cannot be assumed that if the allegations made
in the FIR for the complaint are taking at their face value and accepted in
their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence under Sections
296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5), 117(2) of the BNS, 2023 . In this regard, the
following observation of the aforesaid case is also worth to mention here:-
"109... We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power
of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare
cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or other wise of the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the
extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
12. So far as the authority cited by the counsel for the petitioner in the
case of Rukmini Narvekar (supra) is concerned, the facts and circumstances
of the case are completely different from the present case and the case is
related to the relation between husband and wife and no prima facie case
was made out against the petitioner of that case. hence, no benefit can be
afforded to the petitioner in this regard.
13. It is also well established that when the case is prima facie
established from the material available on record it would not apposite
for the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings considering the
chances of conviction or acquittal. Where material evidence is available
against the applicant it should be left to be decided by the trial Court
which is the appropriate forum for the evaluation of the said materials
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:531
7 MCRC-53670-2024
and evidences. On this aspect the view of Hon'ble Apex Court recently
held in the case of Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. vs. S. Harish
& Ors., reported in 2024 Law Suit(SC) 847 is condign to quote here as
under:-
189. Once the foundational facts are prima facie
established from the materials on record, it would
be improper for the High Court in a quashing
petition to conduct an intricate evidentiary
inquiry into the facts and ascertain whether the
requisite mental elements are present or not. All
these aspects should be left to be decided by the
trial court which is the appropriate forum for the
evaluation of the same, especially where the
statutory presumption has been attracted prima
facie from the material on record.
190. When the High Court quashes any criminal
proceedings without considering the legal effect
of the statutory presumption, it effectively
scuttles the process of trial and thereby denies the
parties the opportunity to adduce appropriate
evidence and the right to a fair trial. This would
not only defeat the very case of the prosecution
but would also thwart the very object of a
particular legislation and thereby undermine the
public confidence in the criminal justice system.
14. The aforesaid law has already been followed by this Court in the
recent judgments rendered in Indrajeet Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and others, 2024 MPHC (IND) 32243, Milan and others Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others, 2024 MPHC (IND) 30672 and Raju Khan Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2024 Law Suit (MP) 683.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:531
8 MCRC-53670-2024
15. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR
or the consequential criminal proceedings arising out of the same.
Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
Before parting, it is clarified that trial Court shall not be influenced by
the observations of this Court made in this order, during trial.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
VD
