Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Meera Yadav v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No. 9743 of 2022 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 26.9.2023
¼1½ egkRek xk¡èkh jk"Vªh; xzkeh.k j¨txkj xkjaVh vfèkfu;e] 2005 & èkkjk 28 rFkk 30 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 21 rFkk 52 & lu~ 2005 d¢ vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 30 d¢ vèkhu laj{k.k & ;kph xzke iapk;r dh ljiap & mld¢ fo#) vfHkdFku fd xzke iapk;r d¢ leLr dk;Z mld¢ iq= }kjk fd, tk jgs & ;kph dBiqryh d¢ :i esa dk;Z dj jgh gS rFkk nLrkost¨a ij gLrk{kj ek= djrh gS & fujh{k.k ny }kjk ek¡xs tkus ij nLrkost vkx esa tyk fn, & lM+d dk fufeZr ugÈ ijarq /ku dk nqfoZfu;ksx fd;k x;k & ;g ugÈ dgk tk ldrk fd dk;Z ln~Òko ls fd, x, & ;kph èkkjk 30 d¢ vèkhu laj{k.k dh gdnkj ugÈA ¼iSjk 19½
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 21 rFkk 52 & ln~Òko & ;kph xzke iapk;r dh ljiap & mld¢ fo#) vfHkdFku fd xzke iapk;r d¢ leLr dk;Z mld¢ iq= }kjk fd, tk jgs & ;kph dBiqryh d¢ :i esa dk;Z dj jgh gS rFkk nLrkost¨a ij gLrk{kj ek= djrh gS & fujh{k.k ny }kjk ek¡xs tkus ij nLrkost vkx esa tyk fn, & lM+d dk fufeZr ugÈ ijarq /ku dk nqfoZfu;ksx fd;k x;k & ;g ugÈ dgk tk ldrk fd dk;Z ln~Òko ls fd, x,A ¼iSjk 9½
¼3½ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vfèkfu;e] 1993 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 89 rFkk 92 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 54 & çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ nkf[ky djuk & çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ nkf[ky djus d¢ fy, laKs; vijkèk gksuk vko';d & f'kdk;rdrkZ d¢ lqus tkus ds vfèkdkj dh d¨Ã çklafxdrk ugÈ & ek= blfy, fd iapk;r jkt vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 89 ,oa 92 d¢ vèkhu flfoy nkf;Ro dh olwyh d¢ fy, çfØ;k micafèkr gS] ;g ugÈ dgk tk ldrk fd çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ nkf[ky ugÈ dh tk ldrhA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vfHkfu/kkZfjr% ;kph dk i{kdFku ;g gS fd eè; çns'k iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vfèkfu;e] 1993 vius&vki esa iw.kZ vfèkfu;e gS v©j blfy,] xzke iapk;r ;k jkT; d¨ gqà gkfu d¢ fy, çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ nkf[ky ugÈ dh tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 13½
;kph d¢ dkmUlsy fofèk dk ,slk dksbZ Òh micaèk ugÈ crk ld¢ t¨ vfHkO;ä :i ls ;k foof{kr :i ls naM çfØ;k lafgrk ,oa naM lafgrk d¢ micaèkksa ds ykxw g¨us dks oftZr djrk g¨A ek= blfy, fd eè; çns'k iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vfèkfu;e] 1993 dh èkkjk 89 ,oa 92 d¢ vèkhu flfoy nkf;Ro dh olwyh dh çfØ;k micafèkr dh xbZ gS] ;g ugÈ dgk tk ldrk fd naM çfØ;k lafgrk ,oa naM lafgrk d¢ micaèk gVk fn, x, gSaA çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ nkf[ky djus d¢ fy, laKs; vijkèk gksuk vko';d gS v©j f'kdk;rdrkZ d¢ lqus tkus ds vfèkdkj dh] tgk¡ rd og nkafMd U;k;'kkL= ls lacafèkr gS] d¨Ã çklafxdrk ugÈ gSA nkafMd vfHkdj.k d¨ d¨Ã Òh lfØ; ldrk gSA eè; çns'k iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vfèkfu;e] 1993 d¢ vèkhu otZu d¢ vÒko esa] ;g ugÈ dgk tk ldrk fd çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ nkf[ky ugÈ dh tk ldrh FkhA ¼2009½ 11 ,l lh lh 424 rFkk nkafMd vihy Ø- 2093 lu~ 2023 fu.kÊr fnukad 25-7-2023 ¼,l lh½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 16½
¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 54 & çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ nkf[ky djuk & çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ nkf[ky djus d¢ fy, laKs; vijkèk gksuk vko';d & f'kdk;rdrkZ d¢ lqus tkus ds vfèkdkj dh d¨Ã çklafxdrk ugÈ & ;fn flfoy nkf;Ro dh olwyh d¢ fy, d¨Ã micaèk gS rks] otZu d¢ vÒko esa ;g ugÈ dgk tk ldrk fd çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ nkf[ky ugÈ dh tk ldrhA ¼2009½ 11 ,l lh lh 424 rFkk nkafMd vihy Øekad 2093 lu~ 2023 fu.kÊr fnukad 25-7-2023 ¼,l lh½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 13 ,oa 16½
¼5½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 482 & 'kfä dh O;kfIr & èkkjk 482 d¢ vèkhu 'kfä dk ç;¨x djrs le; f'kdk;r esa fd, x, vfHkdFku¨a dk voyac ysuk g¨rk gS & çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ esa fd, x, vfHkdFku çFken`"V~;k laKs; vijkèk çdV djrs gSa & vUos"k.k esa gLr{ksi mfpr ugÈA ¼2014½ 15 ,l lh lh 221] ¼2012½ 4 ,l lh lh 547] ¼2019½ 10 ,l lh lh 337 rFkk ¼2017½ 9 ,l lh lh 413 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 17 ,oa 19½
¼6½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 482 & 'kfä dh O;kfIr & çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ vln~Òkfod vk”k; ls nkf[ky dh xà gS ;k ugÈ & U;k;ky; lafnXèk dh çfrj{kk ugÈ ns[k ldrk & çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ esa fd, x, vfHkdFku¨a d¢ lkFk gh tk¡p çfrosnu ls fopkj.kh; vfHkdFku fl) & fopkj.k lafLFkr ,oa fofuf'pr fd, tkus d¢ iwoZ bl U;k;ky; }kjk lkexzh ij fopkj djuk =qfViw.kZ g¨xkA ¼2008½ 12 ,l lh lh 346 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 24 ,oa 27½
¼7½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 54 & çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ & vfHkdFku¨a ls laKs; fl) gksrk gS & çkjafÒd tk¡p ugha djus ls çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ nwf"kr ugÈ g¨xhA ¼2014½ 2 ,l lh lh 1 foosfprA nkafMd vihy Øekad 1045 lu~ 2021 fu.kÊr fnukad 8-10-2021 ¼,l lh½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 34½
(1) Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 -- Ss. 28 and 30 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 21 and 52 -- protection under section 30 of Act, 2005 -- petitioner Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat -- allegation against her that all works of Gram Panchayat being done by her son -- petitioner acting as puppet and simply signing documents -- documents put on fire when demanded by inspection team -- road not constructed but money misappropriated -- it cannot be said that acts were done in good faith -- petitioner not entitled for protection under section 30. [Para 9
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 21 and 52 -- good faith -- petitioner Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat -- allegation against her that all works of Gram Panchayat being done by her son -- petitioner acting as puppet and simply signing documents -- documents put on fire when demanded by inspection team -- road not constructed but money misappropriated -- it cannot be said that acts were done in good faith. [Para 9
(3) Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M. P.) -- Ss. 89 and 92 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 54 -- lodging of FIR -- commission of cognizable offence necessary for registration of FIR -- locus of complainant has no relevance -- merely because procedure is provided under sections 89 and 92 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam for recovery of civil liability, it cannot be said that FIR cannot be registered.
Held : It is the case of the petitioner that Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 is complete Act in itself and therefore, the FIR cannot be lodged for the loss caused to the Gram Panchayat or to the State. [Para 13
Counsel for petitioner could not point out any provision of law, which expressly or impliedly bars the application of provisions of CrPC and IPC. Merely because procedure has been provided under sections 89 and 92 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 for recovery of the civil liability, it cannot be said that the provisions of CrPC and IPC have been ousted. For registration of FIR, commission of cognizable offence is necessary and the locus of complainant so far as it relates to criminal jurisprudence is concerned, has no relevance. Anybody can set criminal agency in motion. In absence of any bar under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, it cannot be said that the FIR could not have been lodged. (2009) 11 SCC 424 and Criminal Appeal No. 2093 of 2023 decided on 25.7.2023 (SC) followed.
[Para 16
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 54 -- lodging of FIR -- commission of cognizable offence necessary for registration of FIR -- locus of complaint has no relevance -- if there is provision for recovery of civil liability, in absence of any bar it cannot be said that FIR cannot be lodged. (2009) 11 SCC 424 and Criminal Appeal No. 2093 of 2023 decided on 25.7.2023 (SC) followed. [Paras 13 & 16
(5) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- scope of powers -- while exercising power under section 482, Court has to rely upon allegations made in complaint -- allegations made in FIR prima facie disclose cognizable offence -- interference in investigation not proper. (2014) 15 SCC 221, (2012) 4 SCC 547, (2019) 10 SCC 337 and (2017) 9 SCC 413 followed. [Paras 17 & 19
(6) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- scope of powers -- FIR lodged with mala fide intention or not -- Court cannot look into defence of suspect -- triable allegations made out from allegations made in FIR as well as inquiry report -- it would be erroneous for Court to assess material before trial is instituted and concluded. (2008) 12 SCC 346 followed. [Paras 24 & 27
(7) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 54 -- FIR -- allegations make out cognizable offience -- not holding preliminary enquiry will not vitiate FIR. (2014) 2 SCC 1 discussed. Criminal Appeal No. 1045 of 2021 decided on 8.10.2021 (SC) followed. [Para 34
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :--
“(i) To issue a writ in the nature o f certiorari letter datd 22.4.2022 may kindly be quashed.
(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus respondents may kindly be restrained to take any coercive action against the petitioner.
(iii) Any other writ or direction as the Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”
2. It is the case of petitioner that by impugned order dated 22.4.2022, a direction has been issued to lodge an F.I.R. on the basis of report submitted by National Level Monitor Team (NLM) against petitioner and others for committing irregularities in Gram Panchayat, Nadiya in an arbitrary manner.
3. It is submitted that direction has been issued contrary to the mechanism, which has already been provided under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short ‘MGNREGA Act’) and Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short ‘Adhiniyam 1993’) by which the loss and misappropriation can be recovered. It is further submitted that the act of the officers is protected under section 28 and 30 of MGNREGA Act. It is further submitted that although there was an order not to take any coercive step but during the pendency of petition, FIR has been lodged at Police Station and accordingly the petitioner by incorporating amendment has also challenged the FIR dated 29.4.2022. It is the case of petitioner that as per sections 28 and 30 of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short 'MGNREGA Act') anything which has been done in good faith is exempted from prosecution or other legal proceedings. It is further submitted that allegations made against petitioner in the letter written by Collector are completely vague. There were no allegations against petitioner in spite of that CEO has written to the SHO, Police Station, Digoda District Tikamgarh to lodge FIR against several persons including petitioner. It is further submitted that even otherwise, allegations made against petitioner would not prima facie make out a cognizable offence and under the facts and circumstances of case, preliminary enquiry was desirable as held by Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. It is further submitted that Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam is a complete Act in itself according to which, unless and until an enquiry is conducted under sections 89 and 92 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, no civil liability can be imposed on the petitioner and accordingly, lodging of FIR is not warranted.
4. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for State and it is submitted that lodging of FIR is not dependent upon the findings recorded under section 89 and 92 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Furthermore, the protection as provided under section 30 of MGNREGA Act will be applicable only if it is found that the act of petitioner was in good faith. Whether the petitioner had acted in good faith or not is a disputed question of fact.
5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties. Whether, the petitioner is entitled for benefit of section 28 and 30 of MGNREGA Act or not.
6. Section 28 and 30 of MGNREGA Act reads as under :
28. Act to have overriding effect.-- The provisions of this Act or the Schemes made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of such law :
Provided that where a State enactment exists or is enacted to provide employment guarantee for unskilled manual work to rural households consistent with the provisions of this Act under which the entitlement of the households is not less than and the conditions of employment are not inferior
The power to quash a complaint/FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and is an exception rather than an ordinary rule.
The necessity of conducting a preliminary enquiry in cases of alleged corruption involving disproportionate assets, and the requirement of registering an FIR based on existing legal provisions.
Preliminary enquiry is not mandatory before FIR registration under the Prevention of Corruption Act; a prima facie case allows for investigation without prior inquiry.
The accused has no right to a hearing before the registration of an FIR, and anyone can initiate criminal proceedings unless explicitly barred by law.
Forgery - Quash of FIR - Rights of petitioner - While ensuring and protecting rights of accused and complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and, in any case, it should not exceed....
The registration of an FIR is obligatory if the information provided indicates a cognizable offence, as preliminary inquiries cannot delay the registration process, particularly in cases involving sy....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
