Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 274
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vijay Kumar Shukla, J
Deepak Garg – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 33397 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amit Agrawal, Arjun Agrawal
For the Respondents: Vishal Sanotia, Yogesh Gupta
The High Court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly, particularly before charges are framed, and the court should not engage in a meticulous examination of evidence or determine the reliability of allegations at such a preliminary stage.
Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(r) and (s) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294 and 506 - Quashment of FIR and charge sheet - Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure - Court held that inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases - At the stage of framing of charge, the court must only consider if there is sufficient material to proceed and should not conduct a meticulous examination of evidence or determine the reliability of allegations - As charges were yet to be framed, applicant has an opportunity to present his case before the trial court. (Paras 6, 9-10, 12, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a petrol pump owner, and the respondent, a former President of a District Bar Association, had a dispute regarding the use of land for construction related to the District Court. Following a failed mediation and an alleged criminal incident, an FIR was registered against the petitioner under the IPC and the SC & ST Act, 1989. The petitioner sought the quashment of the resulting charge sheet, alleging false implication and lack of evidentiary foundation.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the investigation resulted in a charge sheet supported by witness statements and CCTV footage. Since the framing of charges is pending, the court declined to interfere with the criminal process at this preliminary stage, upholding the principle that inherent jurisdiction under S.482 Cr.P.C is not for detailed evidentiary analysis during the investigation phase.
Issues: Whether the FIR and charge sheet should be quashed under S.482 Cr.P.C due to alleged lack of ingredients of the offences and contradictions in evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: Inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C must be exercised sparingly, and the court should not embark upon a miniscule assessment of evidence when a prima facie case is made out and charges are yet to be framed.
Result: Petition dismissed.
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
The present petition is filed u/S.482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of the FIR and charge sheet in Crime No.0436/2018 for the alleged offence u/Ss.294, 506 IPC read with Sec.3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “SC & ST Act 1989”) and all subsequent proceedings.
[2] This is second visit of the present applicant u/S.482 of the Cr.P.C. Initially on 15.10.2018 an FIR in Crime Case Number 436/2018 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Dewas for the offences punishable u/Ss.294, 506 and 34 of the IPC read with Secs.3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC & ST Act 1989 and Sec.25/27 of the Arms Act against the present applicant and his father Mannulal Garg. Earlier along his father Mannulal Garg the applicant filed a petition u/S.482 of Cr.P.C seeking quashment of the FIR dated 15.10.2018. The said petition was disposed off by order dated 27.3.2019 with the following directions:-
“Undisputedly, the advocate chambers are constructed in the premises of the District Court, Dewas and just adjacent thereto is the petrol pump being run by the petitioners. If there is any doubt or confusion as regards the dividing line through the boundary wall or barbed wire fencing, in all fairness, the respondent No.2 should have consulted the District Judge and sought assistance instead of picking up fight with petitioners.
9. Though there is substantial force in the submission advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, but, this Court is of the view that in the fitness of things, it shall be appropriate to direct the Superintendent of Police, Dewas for intervention in the matter and use his good office ensuring peace and tranquility settling the matter. If required, he may also seek guidance from the District Judge, Dewas as vulnerability of dividing line of boundary wall involves the ownership land of the petitioners and premises of the District Court.
At the same time, the Superintendent of Police shall also bestow conscious consideration upon the complaint filed by the petitioners vide Annexures P/11, P/12 and P/13 while carrying our directions of this Court and take a decision.
However, no coercive action shall be taken against either of the party.”
[3] It is undisputed that the mediation between the parties failed and after investigation, the respondent No.1 filed a charge sheet against the present applicant in the said case for commission of offence u/Ss.294, 506 and Sec.3(1(r) and (s) of SC & ST Act, 1989. The case was closed against co accused Mannulal Garg and the charge sheet was not filed for commission of offences u/S.34 IPC and Sec.25/27 of the Arms Act. It is also not in dispute that the charges have yet not been framed by the trial court.
[4] The facts of the case are that wife of the petitioner owns a petrol pump namely M/S. Maa Kailadevi Motors which is situated on land comprising of Survey Nos.640, 645, 641 and 642, Patwari Halka No.18, Indore Dewas Road, Dewas. The District Court, Dewas premises is just adjacent to the land of petrol pump of the petitioner. The petitioner’s land is separated from the district court premises by barbed wire fence. For the purpose of construction work, for the construction of Advocates Chambers in the District Court Dewas premises was under progress. The raw material of construction was dumped and parked on the main entrance gate of the District Court premises due to which heavy vehicles like trucks and dumpers could not pass through the main entrance gate. The respondent No.2 former president of Dewas District Court Bar Association requested the petitioner to temporarily permit the movement of vehicles carrying construction material into the District court premises through the petitioner’s vacant land for a period of one month. It is stated that the petitioner in good faith accepted the request of respondent No.2 and removed the barbed wire f
