SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(MP) 142

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ravi Malimath, CJ, and Vishal Mishra, J.
P. K. Nandi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition No. 16247 of 2022 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 1.4.2023

Advocates:
Amitabh Gupta for petitioner; Ritwik Parashar, Government Advocate for respondents No. 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10 and 11; Madhur
Shukla for respondent No. 3.

Headnote:

(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- quashing of FIR -- economic offences -- name of petitioner mentioned in FIR -- allegations clearly reflected against petitioner -- authorities thoroughly investigated and found involvement of petitioner -- sanction for prosecution already given -- quashing entire criminal proceedings including FIRs totally unwarranted. [Para 7

(2) Practice -- quashing of FIR -- two FIRs registered and charge-sheet not filed for long time -- this cannot be ground for quashing of FIR if involvement of petitioner is found by authorities in investigation. [Para 7

(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 409, 420, 468, 471, 406, 34 and 120B -- quashing of FIR -- petitioner's involvement clearly reflected -- only prima facie case against petitioner required to be seen at this stage -- all grounds taken by petitioner virtually his defence, which could be raised before trial Court during trial -- no challenge to charge-sheet -- petition not entertained. 2021 SCC Online 315 followed. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 referred to. [Para 9

(4) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- Ss. 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) -- quashing of FIR -- petitioner's involvement clearly reflected -- only prima facie case against petitioner required to be seen at this stage -- all grounds taken by petitioner virtually his defence, which could be raised before trial Court during trial -- no challenge to charge-sheet -- petition not entertained.2021 SCC Online 315 followed. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 referred to. [Para 9

¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk vfHka[kMu && vkfFkZd vijk/k && ;kph dk uke izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa mfYyf[kr && ;kph ds fo#) vfHkdFku Li"Vr% ifjyf{kr && izkf/kdkfj;ksa us xgu vUos"k.k fd;k vkSj ;kph varoZfyr ik;k x;k && vfHk;kstu ds fy, eatwjh nh tk pqdh && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ lfgr laiw.kZ nkafMd dk;Zokgh dk vfHk[kaMu iw.kZr% vokaNuh;A ¼iSjk 7
¼2½ izFkk && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk vfHk[kaMu && nks izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ jftLVªhÑr rFkk vkjksii= yacs le; rd izLrqr ugha && vUos"k.k esa izkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk ;kph varoZfyr ik;k x;k gks rks ;g izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ ds vfHk[kaMu dk ;g vk/kkj ugha gks ldrkA ¼iSjk 7
¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 &&/kkjk 409] 420] 468] 471] 406 34 rFkk 120[k
&& izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk vfHk[kaMu && ;kph dk varoZfyr gksuk Li"Vr% ifjyf{kr && bl izØe ij ;kph ds fo#) dsoy izFken`"V~;k ekeyk ns[kk tkuk visf{kr
&& ;kph }kjk fy, x, lHkh vk/kkj oLrqr% mldh izfrj{kk] tks fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k fopkj.k ds nkSjku fy, tk ldrs gSa && vkjksii= ij vk{ksi ugha && ;kfpdk xzg.k ugha dh xbZA 2021 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu 315 vuqlfjrA 1992 lIyh- ¼1½ ,l lh lh 335 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 9
¼4½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 &&/kkjk 13 ¼1½ ¼?k½ rFkk /kkjk 13¼2½ && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk vfHk[kaMu && ;kph dk varoZfyr gksuk Li"Vr% ifjyf{kr && bl izØe ij ;kph ds fo#) dsoy izFken`"V~;k ekeyk ns[kk tkuk visf{kr && ;kph }kjk fy, x, lHkh vk/kkj oLrqr% mldh izfrj{kk] tks U;k;ky; ds le{k fopkj.k ds nkSjku fopkj.k fy, tk ldrs gSa && vkjksii= ij vk{ksi ugha && ;kfpdk xzg.k ugha dh xbZA 2021 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu 315 vuqlfjrA 1992 lIyh- ¼1½ ,l lh lh 335 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 9

ORDER

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the First Information Reports registered by the Economic Offences Wing vide Crime No. 32 of 2015 dated 29.9.2015 for the offence punishable under sections 409, 420, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as vide Crime No. 817 of 2019 dated 15.12.2019 for the offence under sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been elected as a Vice President of the society vide election dated 7.5.2012. The respondent No.5 has also contested the election for the post of President. Being aggrieved by the result of the election, the respondent No.5 filed an election dispute before the Joint Registrar which was transferred to the Court of Deputy Registrar. However, no order could be obtained by the respondent No.5 restraining the newly elected body to function. The respondent No.5 tried to lodge a police complaint before the CSP, MP Nagar, Bhopal alleging certain irregularities in the election of the President. The complaint was examined by the Assistant District Prosecution Officer and a report declining registration of an FIR was submitted to the Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, he lodged a similar complaint with the respondent No.3/Economic Offences Wing, which has taken cognizance in the matter and got registered an FIR against the petitioner at Crime No.32 of 2015 for the offence under sections 409, 420, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3 . It is the case of the petitioner that on the same set of facts on which the opinion from the Assistant District Prosecution Officer has already taken and it was opined that no case for registration of an FIR is made out, the Economic Offences Wing has got registered the FIR. Despite lapse of about seven years, no charge-sheet was filed and, therefore, the respondent No.5 preferred a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.8209 of 2016 which was disposed off with a direction to the Chief Secretary to conduct an enquiry and further directing the Economic Offences Wing to complete the investigation within one year. The enquiry was got conducted by the Chief Secretary and showed its concurrence and satisfaction with the proceedings pending before the cooperative Courts and tribunal. It is his case that despite the fact that no material was found against the petitioner and the Chief Secretary has not given any positive finding against the petitioner, the Deputy Registrar entertained the complaint and directed for an enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner was found to be in conflict with sections 72(D), 72 B(1)(e) and 72 B(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1960') and sanction for prosecution under section 76 of the Act of 1960 was given resulting into registration of an FIR vide Crime No. 817 of 2019 for the offence under sections 420, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. After more than two and half years, no charge-sheet was filed and the petitioner has been harassed at the hands of the police authorities. It is submitted that there is no material against the petitioner with the police authorities showing his involvement in commission of offence. Therefore, the present petition has been filed seeking quashment of the FIRs.

4 . During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that now a charge-sheet has been filed by the police authorities and the matter is now pending trial before the concerning trial Court. But as registration of an FIR against the petitioner itself is not warranted looking to the facts of the case, therefore, continuing with the trial of the case will be a futile exercise and will amount to gross injustice and harassment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top