Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Rakesh Kumar and Others – Applicant
Vs.
State of M.P. and Anr. - Respondents
MCRC 9291 of 2014
Decided On : 25-04-2018
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - Criminal Proceedings - Section 307, 341, 34 of IPC - 482 of CrPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between the applicant and the respondent, resulting in a gunshot injury to the applicant's son. The police filed multiple closure reports, but the Magistrate rejected them and took cognizance against the applicants. The applicants challenged this decision in a criminal revision, citing the abuse of process of law.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the FIR filed by the respondent was a counter-blast to the FIR filed by the applicant, and the medical and scientific evidence contradicted the allegations. The Court held that the Magistrate did not apply its mind entirely and accepted the closure report, quashing all criminal proceedings against the applicants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR filed by the respondent was an abuse of process of law and whether the closure report should be accepted.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the principles laid down in various Supreme Court cases, emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of process of law and secure the ends of justice. It considered the soundness of the material, ruled out the assertions in the charges, and concluded that the proceedings would result in an abuse of process of the court.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the orders of the lower courts, accepted the closure report, and quashed all criminal proceedings against the applicants.
1. This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 11/09/2014, passed by Fourth ASJ, Morena in Criminal Revision No. 97/2014, thereby affirming the order dated 16/07/2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena in Crime No. 509/2012, by which the closure report filed by the police was not accepted and the cognizance was taken for offence under Sections 307, 341, 34 of IPC.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the applicant no.3 Rajkumar Sharma had lodged a FIR against the respondent No.2 and three more accused persons to the effect that on 05/10/2012, at 07:30 in the morning when his son Pawan was coming back to his house and the applicant No.3 was following his son, at that time, the respondent No.2 came there and instructed that although the dispute of the applicant No.3 as well as his son Pawan is going on with Amresh Sharma the applicant No.2, but since respondent No.2 has taken over the Cold Store as well as two bigha land from Amresh Sharma, therefore, now the applicant No.3 and his son should not cultivate the said land. When the applicant No.3 Rajkumar Sharma and Pawan replied that they would continue to cultivate the said land, then the other three accused persons, namely, Munna, Mukesh and Indraveer came on the spot. The respondent No.2 fired a gunshot causing injury on the right thigh of Pawan. Pawan was taken to Ambah Hospital, from where he was referred to District Hospital, Morena and on arrival at District Hospital, Morena, the doctor declared deceased Pawan as dead. On the report of applicant No.3, the police registered a Crime No. 505/2012 against the respondent No.2 and three more accused persons, namely, Muna, Indraveer and Mukesh for offence under Sections 307, 294, 323, 34 of IPC. The statements of the witnesses were recorded in the said case and the witnesses in their case diary statements have also stated that while fleeing away, an indiscriminate firing was done by the accused persons in Crime No. 505/2012 and they were also saying that now the complainant party should also be falsely implicated for causing gunshot injuries. The police after concluding the investigation has filed charge sheet against the respondent No.2 as well as three more co-accused persons. It is submitted that in order to create a counterevidence, the respondent no.2 by causing a self-inflicted injury, lodged a FIR against the applicants. The police after concluding the investigation, came to a conclusion that a false report has been lodged and accordingly, filed the closure report. The closure report was not accepted by the Magistrate by order dated 23/09/2013 and accordingly, a direction for further investigation was given. After making further investigation, the police once again filed the closure report pointing out that no offence is made out. However, the second closure report was not accepted by the Magistrate by order dated 22/03/2014 on the ground that earlier, the police was directed to carry out the further investigation, but the closure report which has been filed by the police once again indicates that no further investigation has been done, accordingly, the matter was again remanded back. The police thereafter carried out the further investigation and for the third time filed the closure report. The CJM, Morena by order dated 16/07/2014, rejected the third closure report filed by the police and took cognizance against the applicants. Challenging the order dated 16/7/2014 passed by CJM, Moena, the applicants had filed a criminal revision which too has suffered dismissal by order dated 11/09/2014 passed by the ASJ, Morena in Criminal Revision No.97/2014.
3. Before commencement of the arguments the counsel for the applicants was asked about the stage in the trial. The counsel for the applicants fairly conceded that during the pendency of this application, the charges have been framed, but submitted that only one witness has been
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
