Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 1202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
D. K. PALIWAL, J.
KEDAR SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent
M. Cr. C. No. 10145 of 2013
Decided On : 01-05-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. R. Saraf,Rizwan Khan
For the Respondent: Deepak Rawal,Deepak Tiwari
The court emphasized that the power to quash a proceeding should be used sparingly and with circumspection to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
Headnote:
Abuse of Process of Law - Quashing of FIR - Indian Penal Code, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - 354(1), 354-D, 506(2), 3(1)(xi), 3(1)(xii)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant District Excise Officer, was accused of making derogatory remarks and threats against a complainant belonging to a scheduled caste. Charges were framed under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations did not constitute the offenses under the relevant sections, and the inquiry revealed the allegations to be baseless. Therefore, the court concluded that the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of law and quashed the FIR.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the allegations under the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and whether the FIR should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the guidelines from the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal and others, and the principles from Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque to determine that the allegations did not constitute the offenses and the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of law.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR lodged against the petitioner was quashed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition has been filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No. 74/2013 at P. S. Naiabadi
2. Factual matrix of the case is that the complainant made a complaint against the petitioner alleging that she belongs to scheduled caste and posted as a Sub Excise Inspector in the Office of District Excise, Mandsaur. On 7-9-2013 petitioner met her in Office premises and told that what she did by making complaint against him and addressing her "Chamarin". Petitioner also said that he would teach her lesson and threatened to1 defame her blaming her to be characterless. It is alleged that earlier also on 25-5-2013 petitioner has committed with her and a complaint was made by the complainant to the Senior Officers and the matter was under inquiry, however no action has been taken. It is further alleged that the complainant feeling unsafe, therefore, prayed for taking action against the petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid complaint crime No. 74/2013 under section 354(1), 354-D and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have been registered against the petitioner. After due investigation charge-sheet has been filed before the Special Judge. The learned Special Judge after having considered the material placed before him, framed the charges under section 354(1), 354-D and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Being aggrieved this petition has been filed.
3. It is submitted that a false case has been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was posted as Assistant District Excise Officer, Mandsaur while complainant was posted as Excise Sub-Inspector, Mandsaur. On 22-5-2013 respondent No. 3 telephoned the petitioner and demanded the vehicle. Petitioner asked her to come in uniform with her staff at the District Excise Office but she replied that she has qualified PSC and has completed her doctorate and she understands more than the petitioner. On 23-5-2013 respondent No. 3 threatened petitioner to involve in a false atrocities case and petitioner has made a written complaint to the District Excise Officer, Mandsaur. After getting the information of written report made by the petitioner, respondent No. 3 made a false complaint. Thereafter inquiry was made. It was found that complaint made by respondent No. 3 is false. It is further submitted that respondent No. 3 further made a complaint against the petitioner to City Superintendent Office Police, Mandsaur making false allegations. It is submitted that bare perusal of first information report no offence is made out against the petitioner. The first information report is nothing but abuse of process of law. It is submitted that the ingredients of offence under section 354-D of and section 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are missing, hence prayed for quashment of first information report.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 submitted that upon the complaint made by respondent No. 3 due investigation has been made and charge-sheet has been filed, hence first information report cannot be quashed.
5. I have gone through the first information report, it reveals that no allegation of demand or request for sexual favours or making sexually coloured remarks have been made in the complaint. Similarly the word "Chamarin" has been mentioned but essential ingredients of offence punishable under section 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are missing.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, laid down the guidelines when the power under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code could be exercised. These are as under :-
"1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint even if they are
