Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ANAND PATHAK, J.
Chhabiram Tomar and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of M.P. and Another – Respondents
M. Cr. C. No. 10107 of 2012
Decided On : 24-01-2019
FIR Quashment - Criminal Procedure Code - Indian Penal Code, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - 294, 323, 506-B, 342, 336, 34, 3(1)(x) - The court discussed the maintainability of a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing an FIR, considering the abscondence of the accused and the legal provisions related to anticipatory bail and proclaimed absconder. The court emphasized that abscondance does not lead to a final conclusion of guilt and that the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 cannot be curtailed by other provisions of the Code or any other statute. However, the court also highlighted that the grant of anticipatory bail is restricted if the accused is a proclaimed offender.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashment of an FIR lodged against them for alleged offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The FIR was based on an accident involving the daughter of one of the petitioners and a subsequent altercation with the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the petitioners, who were proclaimed absconders, cannot seek any interim relief or anticipatory bail. It held that the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be invoked even if the accused are proclaimed absconders, but the scope of relief is extremely narrow in such cases.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code considering the abscondence of the accused and the legal provisions related to anticipatory bail and proclaimed absconder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that abscondance does not lead to a final conclusion of guilt and that the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 cannot be curtailed by other provisions of the Code or any other statute. However, it also highlighted that the grant of anticipatory bail is restricted if the accused is a proclaimed offender.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court held that the allegations were specific and the case was not such where interference could be made under the extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners were directed to plead and prove their innocence before the trial court.
ORDER :
1. The present petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the petitioners for quashment of FIR lodged against them vide Crime No. 149/2012, registered at Police Station Matabasaiya, District Morena, for alleged offence under sections 294, 323, 506-B, 342, 336 and 34 of Indian Penal Code read with section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that an FIR was lodged by the complainant Narendra Jatav on 2-11-2012 with the allegation that on 1-11-2012 around at 4:30 pm, daughter of petitioner No. 1 (who is Sarpanch of the Village) while driving motorcycle dashed and accident took place in which Lalli, who is daughter of complainant, got injured. Therefore, complainant along with other persons reached the house of petitioners and told them about the accident and act of daughter of petitioner No. 1, but in return, complainant received verbal abuse and manhandling (Marpeet). Therefore, complaint has been made and FIR has been registered against petitioners. The said FIR has been put to challenge by the petitioners.
3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that FIR has wrongly been lodged against them. No prima-facie case is made out against the petitioners on the basis of contents of FIR. Police mala-fide proceeded against the petitioners on a false complaint. No ingredients of provisions of Atrocities Act are found in the FIR. The fundamental rights of the petitioners are affected. Therefore, this case has been registered.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits regarding maintainability of petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to bring home the fact that if petitioners are absconding even then petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable and even if they are proclaimed offenders even then they can invoke the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon in the case of Sunil Clifford Daniel vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 205 and Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406. It is hereby submitted that because of the fact that a person is absconding after commission of crime then by that act itself it cannot be inferred that said abscondance is an additional circumstance against the said persons to hold him guilty for commission of offence.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1/State opposed the prayer and submits that in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730 and law laid down in the case State of M.P. vs. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171, petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable because on 20-3-2013 proceedings for proclamation of absconder were initiated and during the period of absconsion, petitioner No. 1 committed crime regularly. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of this petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
7. Petitioners in the present petition are seeking quashment of FIR registered at the instance of petitioners. Here, it is to be seen that whether petitioners are entitled for hearing under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, if proclamation for absconsion under section 82 of Criminal Procedure Code has been initiated. In the instant case admittedly as per the submission, he has been proclaimed absconder, therefore, they are running from the course of justice. Although, section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code nowhere bars any such eventuality and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sujit Biswas (supra) while taking into consideration earlier judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bipin Kumar Mondal vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 12 SCC 91 and Matru vs. State of U.P. (1971) 2 SCC 75 has held as under:-
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
