A court cannot quash an FIR under Section 482 CrPC before thorough investigation and trial, especially when there are substantial allegations of cognizable offenses.

ORDER The present application under Section 482 of the CrPC, dated

13.07.2015, is filed by the applicant seeking quashment of F.I.R. bearing Crime No.49 of 2013 and further proceedings of Case No.17294 of 2013 arising out of the said FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Inderganj, District Gwalior.

As per the case of prosecution, on 05.02.2013 at approximately 5:30 PM, the complainant/respondent went to the JMFC Court along with Mrs. Manjula to obtain copies of certain documents. It is alleged that Arvind Verma (applicant) and Dharmendra Verma, refused to provide the copies and verbally abused the complainant. Upon leaving the court, the complainant was said to have been grabbed by Dharmendra Verma, while the applicant Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA allegedly struck him on the right hand with a stick, injuring the finger next to his thumb. It is further alleged by the complainant that Dharmendra Verma threatened him and physically assaulted him, while Mrs. Manjula was verbally and physically abused, resulting in injuries to her fingers and left wrist. It is also alleged that both accused threatened the complainant’s family and demanded withdrawal of his cases. Several lawyers, including Vinod, Kamlesh, and Afsar Khan, were said to have witnessed the incident.

The applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the alleged incident. The allegations of verbal abuse, physical assault, or threats against the complainant and Mrs. Manjula are wholly false and baseless. He denies having struck the complainant with a stick or participated in any assault. No injuries sustained by the complainant or Mrs. Manjula were caused by the applicant. The applicant further submits that there was no motive or reason for him to assault or threaten them and the allegations appear to be a result of a misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation. The witnesses cited by the complainant, including Vinod, Kamlesh, Afsar Khan, and others, may provide a different account of the incident. The statements attributed to the applicant are false and fabricated.

The applicant further submits that the learned trial court, without proper examination of the arrest memo, bail bonds, and complaint petition submitted by the applicant, erroneously accepted the complaint and took cognizance, which constitutes a grave error of law and adversely affects the rights and liberty of the applicant. The narrative presented in Case No.17294 of 2013 has not been substantiated by any credible or independent evidence.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA No independent investigator was appointed to verify the facts. On the date of the alleged dispute, court records would have confirmed the presence of the parties, but no such verification was undertaken. There is a clear discrepancy in the medical examination report, as the incident is alleged to have occurred on 05.02.2013 while the medical examination was conducted on 05.03.2013, indicating fabrication. On the date of the alleged incident, the JMFC was not presiding over any court, and no proceedings under the officer mentioned took place. The complainant fabricated documents and narratives, which the investigating officer failed to verify, demonstrating negligence. Names and addresses provided by the complainant were accepted without verification, and fabricated documents were relied upon to falsely establish the offence. The applicant further submits that he FIR and the ensuing proceedings are based on false allegations and fabricated documents, constituting an abuse of the legal process. The allegations lack independent corroboration and are maliciously motivated. Continuing the proceedings would adversely affect the rights and liberty of the applicant. It was thus submitted that the present application be allowed and the alleged FIR and all further proceedings arising out of the said FIR be quashed.

Per contra, Public