IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 7 OF APRIL, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12074 of 2024 VINAY KUMAR MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Atithi Kumar - Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 / State.

Mr. Rajesh Shukla - Advocate for respondent No. 2 / complainant.

ORDER This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.441/2020 registered at Police Station - City Kotwali, District Bhind, RCT No. 53/2020 pending in the Court of JMFC, Bhind as well as charges which were framed against the applicant on

23.01.2024.

2. When a specific question was put to the counsel for applicant as to why he has not challenged the order framing charges, then a solitary answer was given by counsel for applicant that in the case of challenge to the order framing charges in the revision, applicant would not have been in a position to rely upon the documents which are not the part of the charge-sheet and, therefore, this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed. 3. A solitary ground was raised by counsel for applicant that in the FIR Signature Not Verified lodged on 24.09.2020, it was alleged by his father-in-law that on 16.09.2020, at about 09:30 pm, applicant knocked the door and after looking at the complainant i.e. his father-in-law, the applicant started abusing him filthily in the name of mother and sister which was to the annoyance of the complainant and by-passers. When the complainant asked him not to behave in such manner, then applicant alleged that since the complainant has lodged a case of cheating, therefore, in case if he meets him in future, then he would be killed.

4. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that according to the complainant, incident took place in a house situated in Meera Colony, Bhind whereas the applicant has obtained a copy of the rojnamcha sanha from his transport department to show that the applicant was assigned the duty at Chikhli Kalan, Madna Naka, Pattan, Baitul which is approximately 700 kms away from the place at which the incident took place. Therefore, it is submitted that it was not physically possible for the applicant to remain present at the place where the incident is alleged to have taken place. It is submitted that when the evidence is of such a sterling quality, then it can be relied upon by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

5. Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for State as well as counsel for complainant. It is submitted that so far as rojnamcha sanha is concerned, it is yet to be proved by the applicant by examining the persons who have prepared the same. It is further submitted that plea of alibi is disputed question of fact which has to be proved by the accused by leading Signature Not Verified cogent evidence.

6. Heard counsels for parties.

7. The moot question for consideration is as to whether ronjamcha sanha relied upon by the applicant can be said to be an evidence of sterling quality leading to the only conclusion that applicant was not present on the spot?

8. These rojnamcha sanhas cannot be treated as public document of which judicial notice can be taken by the court. The authority who had prepared the rojnamcha sanha has to prove the same by entering into the witness box.

9. Furthermore, it appears that applicant had filed criminal revision No.2990/2023 against the order dated 14.06.2023 by which application filed by the applicant for conducting further investigation was rejected. Aforesaid revision was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Bhind by order dated 22.07.2022 with specific finding that the applicant can prove his plea of alibi by leading cogent evidence in the trial. The plea of alibi is a highly disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

10. The Supreme Court i