The court emphasized that the inherent power should not be used to stifle a legitimate prosecution and that the investigation was incomplete, therefore dismissing the petition.

JUDGMENT

1. Accused/petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (in short ''the Code'') to quash the FIR No.541/2019, under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) registered at Police Station Dindori (MP).

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that complainant/ respondent No.2 is a member of Scheduled Tribe and accused/petitioner is not a member of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe. In the year 2018, the election of Legislative Assembly, Madhya Pradesh, was held. Complainant/ respondent No.2 is resident of Village Ganeshpur, District Dindori. He wanted to contest the election of said assembly as a member of Indian National Congress Party. Accused/petitioner promised him to get a ticket of Member of Legislative Assembly, but he cheated him and received some amount during the period from 10.9.2017 to 29.7.2019. Complainant/ respondent No.2 had given Rs.20,000/-, 30,000/-, 35,000/-, 40,000/-, 2000/-, 3000/-, 4000/-, 5000/-, 10,000/-, 14,000/- and 15,000/- respectively to the accused/petitioner in order to get the ticket of Member of Legislative Assembly. Complainant/ respondent No.2 had also booked his train ticket on 18.1.2018. Complainant/respondent No.2 had also transferred Rs.10,000/- in the SBI account of accused/ petitioner, but the complainant/respondent No.2 did not get any ticket from the Indian National Congress Party. Thereafter, he enquired the matter. It came to his knowledge that accused/petitioner did not give any proposal for his ticket to the office of Indian National Congress Party, then complainant/respondent No.2 demanded his amount. The accused/petitioner only returned Rs.18,000/- on 29.7.2019. Complainant/ respondent No.2 again demanded his amount, then accused/petitioner abused him by the name of his caste and told him that he will never return the balance amount i.e. Rs.3,65,000/- to the complainant/respondent No.2. Thereafter, complainant/respondent No.2 lodged FIR in Police Station Dindori, which was registered as Crime No.0541/2019 under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(dha) of the said Act.

3. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that accused/petitioner is a practising lawyer at Dindori. Accused/petitioner being a member of District Bar Association, Dindori, had gone and raised a protest (Dharna) and had led the procession against the Cabinet Minister Mr. Markam Singh, Tribal Welfare Department. Accused/ petitioner has raised demonstration which came in the knowledge of Mr. Omkar Singh Markam, then Mr. Onkar Singh Markam got the case registered against the accused/petitioner with the assistance of the first informant i.e. complainant/ respondent No.2, who is close to Mr. Omkar Singh Markam. Thereafter, State Bar Council wrote a letter to the Inspector General of Police against the said act. No offence under Section 420 of IPC and Section 3(1) (dha) of the Act is made out against the accused/petitioner and complainant/respondent No.2 was not known to him and the complainant/ respondent No.2 had not paid Rs.10,000/- in the account of the accused/ petitioner. Accused/petitioner has never taken any amount of money for the purpose of getting the ticket. Accused/ petitioner is innocent. All the allegations levelled against the accused/ petitioner are false. Necessary ingredients to constitute the said offence are completely missing in the present case. Accused/ petitioner has no connection directly or indirectly with the said offence. It is quite clear that prima facie no offence is made out against the accused/ petitioner from the contents of the FIR. So, registration of FIR against the accused/petitioner is a misuse of process of law. Therefore, this Court may invoke inherent jurisdiction and set aside the FIR No.541/2019 registered at Police Station Dindori.

4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1 State and learned counsel for the comp