IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
Ramprasad Jatav and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of MP and Ors. - Respondents
MCRC 9138 of 2021
Decided On : 17-02-2021
FIR Quashment - Criminal Procedure - Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, 120-B of IPC - 482
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought quashment of FIR in Crime No. 101/2018 registered for offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, 120-B of IPC. The case involved the preparation of a forged medical document to create a false alibi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found sufficient material against the applicant to prima facie warrant his prosecution for the alleged offences.
Issues: Alleged preparation of forged medical document, misuse of public office, and suppression of material facts by the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles under Section 482 of CrPC, emphasizing that the inherent powers should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. It also highlighted the need for a proper investigation and the requirement for uncontroverted allegations to make out an offence for prosecution to be quashed.
Final Decision: The application for quashment of FIR was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.
1. This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No. 101/2018 registered at Police Station Dabra City, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, 120-B of IPC.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of present application in short are that a Crime No. 455/2017 was registered against Dharmendra Pandey, Ragini Pandey and two other persons at Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 324, 323, 294, 341, 506/34 of IPC and after receipt of the MLC report of the injured, offences under Sections 326 & 307 of IPC were added. It appears that in order to create a false defence of plea of alibi, the accused persons, namely, Ragini Pandey, Dharmendra Pandey, Radhey Pandey and Vivek Pandey hatched a conspiracy and in connivance with Dr. Virendra Gaud who was posted in the Civil Hospital Dabra, a forged and fabricated medical document was prepared to the effect that Ragini Pandey was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Dabra on 04/06/2017 at about 09:00 am and she was discharged on 05/06/2017 at 10:00 am. This forged medical document was prepared in order to create a false defence of plea of alibi of Ragini Pandey because the allegation in Crime No. 455/2017 was that Ragini Pandey, Dharmendra Pandey and two other persons had assaulted the complainant on 04/06/2017 at about 05:00 pm.
3. It is not out of place to mention here that Ragini Pandey along with forged medical certificate filed an application under Section 438 of CrPC before this Court which was registered as MCRC 7358 of 2017 and considering the allegations against her, she was granted anticipatory bail by order dated 10/07/2017.
4. Later on, the complainant filed an application for cancellation of order of anticipatory bail on the ground that the bail was obtained by filing a forged document, which was registered as MCRC 9375/2017. An enquiry was also conducted by the State with regard to the medical certificate issued by Dr. Virendra Gaud and a conclusion was drawn that in fact, Dr. Virendra Gaud had prepared forged and fabricated medical certificate of Ragini Pandey, so that she may obtain anticipatory bail. Relying upon the report submitted by the State with regard to the fact that the certificate issued by Dr. Virendra Gaud was a forged document, this Court by order dated 27/03/2018 passed in MCRC 9375/2017, cancelled the order of anticipatory bail granted to Ragini Pandey. The order dated 27/03/2018 passed in MCRC 9375/2017 was challenged by Ragini Pandey by filing a Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) No. 4986/2018, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 12/06/2018 and seven days' time was granted to Ragini Pandey to surrender herself before the Investigating Officer. It is not out of place to mention here that Ragini Pandey has not still surrendered before the Investigating Officer and is still absconding.
5. It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that the applicant has also been made an accused for making false entry in the OPD Slip. It is further submitted that the son of the applicant has also made an application to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior for free and fair investigation and in that representation, it has been specifically pleaded by the son of the applicant that in fact, Dr. Virendra Gaud is in habit of preparing forged medical certificates after taking money from the people and one Jaswant Jatav supports Dr. Virendra Gaud for preparing forged document but Dr. Virendra Gaud in order to save himself, is trying to falsely implicate the applicant. It is further mentioned in the representation that the applicant is a driver and it is not his duty to make entry in the OPD Slip. In the light of defence taken by the applicant in his representation made to Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a driver and it is not his duty to make entry in the OPD Slip and he is be
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675
Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa (1995) 4 SCC 41
Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692
Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Koveuri Satyanarayana Reddy reported in (2011) 12 SCC 437
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866
State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547
State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540
Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors. reported in AIR 1976 SC 1947
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699
Vinod Raghuvanshi Vs. Ajay Arora
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122.
The court emphasized the need for uncontroverted allegations to make out an offence for prosecution to be quashed, and the requirement for a proper investigation.
Point of law : Needless to point out that if the law provides a particular remedy to an accused, then it is always open for him to exhaust the same while approaching the concerned Court while filing ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for proper investigation and the cautious exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. The Court emphasized that interfere....
Points of law : 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. Court must be careful to see....
Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be applied cautiously, primarily to prevent abuse of process, and FIRs should not be quashed prematurely when allegations disclose a cognizable offenc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a prima facie case to be made out against the accused and the limitations on the court's power to appreciate evidence at the pr....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.