IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 6 OF MAY, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3692 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

DEVKRASHN SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI JAGNNATH PRASAD SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, NAKA GUDHI RAJVEER SCHOOL KE PASS KAMPOO LASHKAR GWALIOR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI KESHAV PATHAK - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION BHITARWAR DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SUSHANT TIWARI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER The present petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of FIR registered vide Crime No.7/2022 under section 166A (b), 201, 204, 120B of IPC.

2. Short facts of the case are that vide Crime No.292/2014 Police Station Bhitarwar, District Gwalior has registered a case under sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC against the present petitioner Signature Not Verified and other co-accused persons.

3. In the aforesaid matter the present petitioner was granted anticipatory bail and thereafter the matter was proceeded in the Sessions Trial No.26/2017 before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior. During the pendency of the said criminal case a compromise was entered into between the complainant Smt. Akshara Gupta and present petitioner and on the basis of the said compromise the FIR registered vide Crime No.292/2014 was quashed under inherent powers of this Court exercising under section 482 of Cr.P.C. in M.Cr.C.

No.47905/2022 vide order dated 9.11.2022.

4. Since in Crime No.292/2014 the investigation was kept open under section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C., during the said investigation one personal diary was recovered from the complainant Dr. Akshara Gupta which was not produced by the then investigating officer i.e. R.P. Indoriya, Sub Inspector which had material bearing over the matter. Accordingly, the present FIR was lodged vide Crime No.7/2020 under the aforesaid sections and the present petitioner was also roped in.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had vehemently argued that when a very crime registered at the instance of complainant Dr. Akshara Gupta had been quashed by this Court then the present matter being offshoot of the said crime also does not deserves to be proceeded with.

6. It was further submitted that so far as the present petitioner is concerned the provisions of section 166A of IPC is not attracted as it deals with public servant disobeying directions under law and the present Signature Not Verified petitioner is not a government servant rather the said crime had been registered under the said section against the co-accused R.P. Indoriya. 7. It was further argued that even the provisions under section 166B are not attracted against the petitioner as it is for the persons who have not treated the victim, it deals with the punishment to the person whoever, being in charge of a hospital, public or private, whether run by the Central Government, the State Government, local bodies or any other person.

8. It was further argued that provisions of section 201 of IPC are also not attracted so far as the present petitioner is concerned as no allegations are levelled against him for causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, as it was the investigating officer who had not seized the diary in question from the complainant and had handed it over to the next incharge of the investigation. Thus, since the aforesaid provisions so far the present petitioner is concerned are not attracted the FIR to that extent deserves to be quashed.

9. It was further argued that the provisions of section 204 of IPC are also not attracted in the matter so far as present petitioner is concerned as he has not destroyed any document or electronic record to prevent its production as evidence, as the said diary has been recovered from the complainant