IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA th ON THE 13 OF MARCH, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7438 of 2016 SANJEEV RAI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER Appearance:

Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for applicants.

Shri A.S. Baghel - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.

Shri Dayaram Vishwakarma - Advocate for respondent No.2.

ORDER On earlier occasion this Court vide order dated 09.01.2024 granted time to the applicants to place on record the order of framing charges. In compliance of the said order learned counsel for the applicants has filed I.A. No.3642 of 2024, an application for taking documents on record. Along with the application the order of framing charges has been filed as Annexure IA/1.

For the reasons mentioned therein, the application is allowed. The same is taken on record.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of an FIR dated 22.03.2016 registered at Crime No.117 of 2016 at Police Station Gairatganj, District Raisen for Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL offences punishable under Sections 294, 509, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and subsequently the charge framed against the applicants under Sections 323, 294, 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(w)(2), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have also been challenged.

2. The case of the applicants is that the respondent No.2/complainant lodged an FIR dated 22.03.2016 alleging therein that on 12.03.2016 the applicants have used filthy language, abused and manhandled the complainant in Tahsil Office premises and threatened her of dire consequence. The dispute arose because of a land deal Area measuring 2.9 Acres and the consideration for which the buyer has to pay to the complainant. The applicant No.1 being a lawyer, who got the sale-deed executed thus, he has to get the balance amount paid. It is further alleged that the applicants abused the complainant by her caste and on the next day i.e. on 13.03.2016 the applicants entered the house of the complainant, assaulted her husband with hands and fists.

3. It is argued that the entire case is an afterthought and as a counterblast to the complaint lodged by the applicants on 12.03.2016 bearing Crime No.87 of 2016 at Police Station Gairatganj, District Raisen. It is pointed out that the complainant herself has lodged an NCR under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. on the same day being NCR No.81 f 2016. After going through the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL NCR, it is clear that the FIR dated 22.03.2016 is an afterthought and no such incident has taken place on 12.03.2016. Complainant being the Panch of the Gram Panchayat Saidpur, Tahsil Gairatganj and since the decision is being taken in Gram Sabha on 15.04.2015 to remove the husband of the complainant from the employment of Panchayat at the instance of Smt. Sumitra Rai, the complaint was made. The applicant No.1 is neither a party to the sale-deed nor he has any stake in the said transaction. On the contrary, he has merely got the sale-deed executed being a part of his profession as an advocate. The consideration of the sale-deed has already been paid in furtherance to the sale-deed dated 23.01.2013 executed by husband of complainant namely Roop Singh in favour of the purchaser Jagmohan Pal. Furthermore, they have accorded their consent for mutation of the name of purchaser Jagmohan Pal in the revenue records after one month from the date of the execution of the sale-deed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court vide order dated 06.06.2016 has stayed the further investigation in Crime No.117 of 2016. On 24.11.2017 it was informed by the learned counsel for the applicants that the charge-sheet has been filed in the aforesaid crim