2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 36145
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Abhishek Guru – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 40173/2018
Ranjan Banerjee,Advocate General
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE
1st OF MARCH, 2024 MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 40173 of 2018 BETWEEN:-
ABHISHEK GURU S/O SHRI VINOD GURU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O 17/31 SADAR BAZAR P.S. CANTONMENT SAGAR, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI RANJAN BANERJEE - ADVOCATE )
AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION CANTONMENT SAGAR, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI GAJENDRA PARASHAR – PANEL LAWYER )
............................................................................................................................................
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of charge sheet and further proceedings pending in the Court of JMFC, Sagar in Criminal Case No.1274/20218.
2. This application is pending since 01.10.2018. Approximately three and half years have passed and the stage of trial is not known.
3. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that allegations against the applicant are that complainant Sanjay Mishra had lodged an FIR on 19.04.2018 on the allegations that on 25.02.2018 some persons had thrown rotten material in his house. Accordingly, he enquired from his friends Amar Singh Thakur and Rakesh Patel as well as also watched the CCTV footage and they saw that one person was throwing a rotten material in his house. Accordingly, he called Matiuddin, the ex- contractor because only he was the best person to identify the person, who had thrown rotten material. Matiuddin informed that person, who had thrown rotten material, is Pappu S/O Mahesh, who is residing in front of Rathore Banglow Madhiya Vitthal Nagar. Then he inquired from Pappu as to why he had thrown rotten material in his house and he said that at the instance of Santiary Inspector Abhishek Guru, he had thrown rotten material because Abhishek Guru had a grievance that complainant raises all sorts of objections in the Cantt. Board and therefore, he should be taught a lesson and in case, if rotten material is not thrown, then he would be turned out of the job. Thus, it was alleged in the FIR that Abhishek Guru has a personal grudge against him and therefore, he has got rotten material thrown in his house. When he talked to Abhishek Guru, then he abused him by mother and sister and also threatened to his life and said that at present he has got rotten material thrown in his house and now on one day he would be killed. Accordingly, FIR No.211/2018 was registered at Police Station Cantonment Sagar, District Sagar for offence under Sections 294, 506, 34 of IPC.
4. The Police after completing investigation filed the charge sheet for offence under Sections 294, 506, 504, 109, 34 of IPC.
5. It is important to mention here that applicant has not impleaded the complainant as respondent No.2. Even otherwise by order dated 10.01.2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed the counsel for applicant to apprise this Court about the status of the case pending before the trial Court. However, nobody is aware of the status of the trial.
6. The applicant in this application has specifically admitted that even if the entire submissions made by him are accepted, still the entire proceedings will not be quashed and prima facie an offence under Section 294 of IPC is made out. Furthermore, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that since Pappu Valmik is an employee of private contractor, therefore, applicant had no authority to remove him from job.
7. However, the said contention cannot be accepted at this stage because applicant was working as a Sanitary Inspector and he could have always pressurized the contractor to remove Pappu Valmik from the job. It is well established principle of law that while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court has to consider the uncontroverted allegatio