IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
Jitendra Makhija S/o Late Shri G.C. Makhija – Petitioner
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 31336 of 2023
Decided On : 04-01-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashment of fir process. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's jurisdiction and the relevant articles. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. scope of high court's jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 6 , 22) |
| 4. criteria for quashing fir. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. regarding the dismissal of the petition. (Para 13) |
| 6. decision against quashing as no merit found. (Para 14 , 15 , 20 , 43) |
| 7. high court's careful consideration of complaints. (Para 18 , 21 , 24 , 36) |
| 8. final outcome of the case. (Para 44) |
ORDER :
1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No. 365/2019 registered at Police Station Omti, District Jabalpur for offence under Sections 294 , 506, 384 of IPC.
2. It is submitted that complainant is running a business in the name and style “Sadhuram Beej Bhandar” and with the help of people, Sindhi Dharmashala is being run near clock tower and complainant is the General Secretary. On 30/08/2019, a Pagdi Rasm program was scheduled in the Dharmashala. Those rituals were in respect of Late Karamchand Pahuja. After rituals were over, some office bearers and members of the society were talking in the office of Dharmashala about future works. At that time, petitioner unauthorizedly entered inside the office and started abusing him filthily on the question of possession. When the complainant and the members of the association objected to it, then he extended a threat that they should give him an amount of Rupees Fifty Lakhs otherwise, he would get the Dharmashala locked and also extended a threat that he would kill the complainant. He also extended a threat that by spreading fake videos, he would defame them in the Society. The incident was witnessed by Kartar Singh Bhatija, Gopaldas Kaishwani, Ramesh Purushbani, Motilal Parwani. After having consultation with the members of the Society, he has come to lodge FIR.
3. It is submitted by petitioner himself that the Police after completing investigation has already filed the charge-sheet and the trial is pending before the Trial Court. It is submitted by petitioner that in fact he was threatened by Superintendent of Police. Petitioner had made a complaint to the Inspector General of Police, Jabalpur, Director General of Police, Divisional Commissioner, Superintendent of Police Jabalpur on 22/10/2019 on the ground that on earlier occasions, Shri Amit Singh, Superintendent of Police had also threatened him to put him in jail and complaint in respect of same was made on 09/10/2019 and 21/10/2019 to the senior officers on which an enquiry is being conducted by DIG as well as by the Grievance Redressal Department of Union of India. Since he had made a complaint against Superintendent of Police, therefore Additional Superintendent of Police issued a notice to him on 28/09/2019 and directed him to appear before him on 30/09/2019. On 22/10/2019, he came to know that a false FIR has been lodged by Nandlal Kungani against him alleging that petitioner had demanded an amount of Rupees Fifty Lakhs and had also abused him, whereas on the said date, he was in the SP Office. When the petitioner talked to SHO, Police Station Omti, then he informed that offence has already been registered and he also insisted the petitioner should withdraw the complaints. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer Shri Neeraj Verma and Shri Rajesh Tripathi, Additional S.P. City Jabalpur have collusion with criminals and they misuse their official positions. In one case, CJM has directed to register FIR against Neeraj Verma. In an order issued by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Katni in CNR MP 2101-004238-2015 on 30/12/2022, a statement was made that Shri S.P.S. Baghel lacks investigating experience and requires training. It is submitted that in spite of repeated requests to take action against respondent No. 3, nothing was done. It is submitted that petitioner is being threatened to withdraw the complaint made against the corrupt activities of office bearers of the Society
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander
All India State Bank Officers’ Federation vs. Union of India
Dhanalakshmi vs. R. Prasanna Kumar
E.P. Royappa vs. State of T.N. AIR 1974 SC 555
Federation of Railway Officers Association vs. Union of India
H.N. Rishbud and Another vs. State of Delhi
Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. vs. Ajay Kumar
J.N. Banavalikar vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1
M. Srikanth vs. State of Telangana
M.N. Ojha vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav
Mohd. Akram Siddiqui vs. State of Bihar
Munshiram vs. State of Rajasthan
R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab
Raghubir Saran vs. State of Bihar
Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi
Rashmi Kumar vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada
Renu Kumari vs. Sanjay Kumar and Others
Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
S. Partap Singh vs. State of Punjab
Sangeeta Agrawal vs. State of U.P. (2019) 2 SCC 336
Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
State of A.P. vs. Gourishetty Mahesh
State of Bihar and Another vs. P.P. Sharma
State of Bihar vs. P.P. Sharma
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal
State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa
State of Kerala vs. O.C. Kuttan
State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta
State of Orissa vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo
State of Orissa vs. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan
State of Punjab and Others vs. Chaman Lal Goyal
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 that the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be sparingly used and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of....
Inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC should be exercised sparingly to prevent misuse of criminal law, quashing only when FIR doesn't disclose an offence.
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs are exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, necessitating sufficient grounds warranting quashing.
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, and not to stifle legitimate prosecutions.
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....
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.