The court has the power to quash proceedings if they are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.

ORDER :

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J.

1. This third petition has been filed under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing/challenging the validity of the supplementary charge sheet bearing Challan No. 03/2020 filed in relation to the FIR bearing Crime No. 623/2018, registered on 11th November, 2018 at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior (MP) under Sections 294, 506, 342 of Indian Penal Code, along with the proceedings initiated at RCT No. 301/2019 in respect of the present applicant pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that on respondent No. 2/complainant Smt. Archana Tiwari lodged a report in Police Station Padav, District Gwalior to the effect that she has her own flat situated in Manav Plaza, Opposite Sai Baba Temple, Gwalior, wherein one Ayush Jain is residing as her tenant. On 9.11.2018 at about 10 pm her tenant informed her on phone that Chowkidar is not opening the door. Complainant Archana Tiwari and her husband Rajendra Tiwari reached the spot and upon inquiry it was told to them that the door will be opened only with the permission of applicant Rambabu Yadav. At the same time applicant came on spot and started hurling filthy language. On this report, the concerning Police Station recorded FIR at Crime No. 623/2018 dated 11.11.2018 at 2.08 pm under Sections 294, 506 of IPC against the present applicant along with Chaukidar Rajesh. After filing charge sheet the applicant was exonerated. Upon his exoneration the petitioner withdrew petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC on 10.7.2019 passed in Misc. Cri. Case No. 49200/2018. Thereafter, the applicant having anticipation that he might have been roped in some fallacious, malicious and counterblast prosecution initiated at the instance of the respondent No. 2, he preferred second Misc. Cri. Petition under Section 482 of CrPC, challenging the impugned FIR as well as the notice dated 3.6.2020 issued by Thana Prabhari, Police Station Purani Chhawani, District Gwalior, which was registered as Misc. Cri. Case No. 27705/2020. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2/complainant colluded with the police personnel and got filed supplementary charge sheet in connection with Crime No. 623/2018, wherein it has been alleged that the applicant has committed offence under Sections 294, 506, 342 of IPC. In the meantime, the applicant withdrew the second petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC on 10.2.2021 passed in Misc. Cri. Case No. 27705/2020 and sought liberty to file afresh in the event any cause of action arises. Therefore, the applicant has filed present petition for quashing the supplementary charge sheet bearing Challan No. 03/2020 in connection with Crime No. 623/2018.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the entire prosecution story is fabricated, doubtful and clearly shows that the allegations put forth have no basis and foundation, which are entirely contradictory and against actual scenario, fact situation and circumstances in the instant case. There is no prima facie case made out under Sections 294, 506, 342 of IPC, as there is no evidence. The FIR has been lodged against the present applicant as a counterblast. Hence, prays for quashing of FIR and other consequential proceedings.

4. Per Contra, learned State counsel opposed the petition and submitted that as the case is registered under Sections 294, 506, 342 of IPC and FIR has been lodged in Crime No. 623/2018 and there is specific allegation against the present applicant, hence prays for rejection of petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC.

5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record.

6. In State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others, [(1977) 2 SCC 699], the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-

"In the, exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continu