Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 37097
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vishal Mishra, J
Sanjeev Rai – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7438 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sankalp Kochar
For the Respondents: A.S. Baghel, Dayaram Vishwakarma
At the stage of framing charges, the Court is only required to determine if a prima facie case exists based on materials available, without engaging in detailed appreciation of evidence or sifting of proofs, which is reserved for the stage of a full-fledged trial.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 294, 509, 34, 323, 506 (Part-II) - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(xi), 3(1)(w)(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) - Quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings - Scope of interference at the stage of framing charges - Court needs to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused - Strict standard of proof is not required only prima facie case is to be seen.
(B) Framing of Charge - Essential Principles - Court must sift the material produced by the prosecution to see if strong suspicion exists - Strong suspicion founded on material sufficient to entertain the prima facie view that the accused has committed the offense - Trial court not to act as mere post office but avoiding deep dive into evidence which is reserved for trial stage.
Facts of the case:
The respondent No.2 lodged an FIR against the applicants alleging verbal abuse based on caste and physical assault in relation to a land deal dispute. The applicants filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR and subsequent charges, arguing it was an afterthought and a counterblast to a previous report. The trial court had nonetheless proceeded to frame charges for offenses under the IPC and the SC/ST Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that prima facie evidence existed in the charge-sheet to proceed against the applicants. It emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court is not required to conduct an elaborate inquiry or weigh evidence meticulously. The issues raised regarding the delay and reliability of the FIR are matters to be examined during the trial.
Issues: Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings against the applicants warrant quashing under Section 482 CrPC, and whether the trial court was justified in framing charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that quashing power should be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases. At the stage of framing charges, the court's primary concern is to satisfy itself that a prima facie case exists, not to conduct a final test of guilt or re-evaluate the sufficiency of evidence.
Result: Petition dismissed.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 crime and the learned trial Court has fixed the case of recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses on 21.02.2017. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has further stayed the proceedings of Special Case No.48 of 2016 pending before the Special Judge, Raisen. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that despite stay being granted by this Court the learned trial Court has proceeded with the matter and framed charges against the applicants.
Placing reliance upon the jud
