The court emphasized the importance of evidence and the need for foundational ingredients of offenses to be clearly established, especially when considering the quashing of FIR and charge sheet.

ORDER : – This petition under section 482 of CrPC has been moved on behalf of petitioner with a prayer to quash the the FIR as well as charge sheet and all other subsequent criminal proceedings pending before the Court of JMFC, Gohad District Bhind initiated in connection with Crime No. 221/2016 registered at Police Station Mau, District Bhind for commission of offences under sections 323, 294, 506, 147 of IPC.

2. Prosecution case, in short is that on 31-10-2016, complainant respondent No. 2 Javed Khan lodged a report at Police Station Mau, District Bhind alleging therein that on the date of incident at about 09:00 p.m., while he was returning home after attending call of nature and was standing with one Nizam Khan near the house of Vedi alias Santosh, all of a sudden, due to previous animosity, petitioner along with other co-accused persons came there and abused him in filthy language. Complainant when objected to it, it is alleged that Vedi alias Santosh along with several other co-accused including petitioner forming an unlawful assembly came there and started giving fist and kick blows on different parts of the body of complainant who sustained minor injuries. Complainant further alleges that Ikhlakh Khan and Kedar Khan intervened and witnessed the incident. It is lastly alleged that while leaving scene of crime accused persons extended criminal intimidation of dire consequence of death. On that basis, aforesaid FIR has been registered against petitioner and other co-accused persons.

3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. Impugned FIR has been lodged by complainant in order to harass petitioner. Allegation of committing “marpeet” with complainant is false. Due to previous enmity and family member of other co-accused persons, he has been falsely implicated in the case. Neither there is direct nor indirect evidence available against petitioner to prima facie make out alleged offence. It is further contended that petitioner is a disabled person and is unable to walk properly and he was not present on the place of occurrence at the time of incident. In support of contention, Handicapped Certificate has been filed by petitioner showing that he is of 50% disability. It is further submitted that petitioner is a student and has passed Gramin Krishi Vistar Adhikari Evam Varishth Krishi Vikas Adhikari Recruitment Test- 2020 and his bright future would be spoiled due to this false implication. On bare perusal of allegations contained in impugned FIR reveal that foundational ingredients of offence are conspicuously missing in FIR and, therefore, even prima facie, no offence is made out against petitioner. To buttress his contention, petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal and ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. It is further contended that in the present matter near about 19 persons including present petitioner have been falsely arrayed as accused. It is further submitted that a coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed petition filed by similarly placed co-accused person under section 482 of CrPC vide order dated 24-11-2020 passed in MCRC 31025/2020.

4. Per contra, counsel for the State opposed the petition and prayed for its dismissal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR as well as documents available on record.

6. From bare perusal of allegations, it is clear that on the fateful day uttering of abusive words is attributed to co-accused Vedi @ Santosh Kaurav and not to any other accused including petitioner. So far as present petitioner is concerned, there is an allegation of being part of unlawful assembly and which gave kick and fist blows to complainant and also of extending criminal intimidation of dire consequence of death while leaving scene of crime. As such, prima facie, foundational ingredients of sections 506 and 323 IPC appear to be ma