Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laksh Keswani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:58986 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND
DHARMADHIKARI
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 44774 of 2023
LAKSH KESWANI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance :
Shri Ankit Saxena - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Dhande - Government Advocate for the State.
Shri R.N.Dwivedi - Advocate for respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 08.11.2024
Pronounced on : 04.12.2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashment of charges framed by the trial Court vide order dated
04.11.2022 in Criminal Case No.451/2021 which was thereafter
registered as ST No.33/2022 under Section 376, 376(2)(n), 376D,
120B, 342, 506, 376(2)(j), 328 and 109 IPC and also to quash the
charge sheet filed in Criminal Case No.451/2021 at PS Manpur,
District Umaria Madhya Pradesh.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 12/6/2024
12:16:13 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:58986 2
2. As per the case of the prosecution, a written complaint was filed
by the victim against accused Laksh Keswani alleging commission of
rape several times which was planned and executed under the direction
of her husband namely Varun Dhakad whereon a case under Section
376, 376(2)(n), 376D, 120B, 343 of IPC was registered against the
accused Laksh Keswani and Varun Dhakad. The complainant was
married to Varun Dhakad in the year 2014 as per Hindu rituals. Vinita
Dhakad was her sister in law. It was alleged that accused was friend of
Vinita Dhakad. On 05.02.2021 accused persons planned to visit Wild
Tiger Resort, Bandhavgarh and a financial transaction was seen
between accused Laksh Keswani and Varun Dhakad. On 05.02.2021
Laksh Keswani came to the house of the complainant and her husband
Varun Dhakad asked her to go with Laksh Keswani to Bandhavgarh.
Trusting her husband she left for Bandhavgarh with Laksh Keswani.
As per the FIR, the accused had pre-booked a room at Wilf Tiger
Resort, Bandhavgarh. He offered cold drink to the complainant which
she accepted and on consuming the same got unconscious. When she
became conscious she found that rape has been committed upon her.
When she asked about her husband, he told that he will not come. It
was alleged that the accused committed rape with her for two days in
the room of Wild Tiger Resort, Bandhavgarh. It was also alleged that
he clicked intimate photographs of the complainant and also threatened
her to publish the photographs on social media if she reveals the
incident to anybody. On the complaint, police carried out entire
investigation and charge sheet was filed before the court of competent
jurisdiction on 05.06.2022. Vide order dated 04.11.2022, the trial Court
framed charges under Section 120-B, 342, 376(2)(Dha) read with
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 12/6/2024
12:16:13 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:58986 3
Section 120B and 506 II of IPC seeking quashment whereof the
petitioner is before this Court.
3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that a false FIR
has been got registered by the prosecutrix against the petitioner
because another complaint has been registered by the brother of the
prosecutrix namely Dheeraj Singh Chouhan on 7.02.2021 against
husband and sister in law of the prosecutrix under Section 294, 323,
506 and 498-A of IPC as well as 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Charge sheet has been filed in that case on 08.07.2021 by PS
Gorakhpur, Jabalpur. In the said FIR it is mentioned by the
complainant that his sister/victim has been assaulted by her husband
namely Varun and sister in law Vinita on 07.02.2021 due to which she
was admitted in Jabalpur hospital till 10.02.2021. It is submitted that in
the FIR lodged by the victim, charge-sheet has been filed on
05.06.2022 against the present petitioner under Section 376, 376(2)(n),
376D, 120B, 342, 506, 376(2)(j), 328 and 109 of IPC. In the said FIR
complainant has clearly mentioned the date of incident as 06.02.2021
and further stated that she was continuously sexually harassed and
being raped for next two days. It is contended that both the FIRs and
date of incidents clashes with each other because a person cannot be
present on two different locations at the same time. Both the locations
are 160 kms away from each other. It is submitted that in the FIR
registered at Jabalpur under Section 498-A it is clearly mentioned that
prosecutrix was admitted in Jabalpur Hospital for three days from
07.02.2021 to 10.02.2021.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of
Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal 1992 suppl.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 12/6/2024
12:16:13 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:58986 4
(1) SCC 335 contending that guidelines have been issued which should
be followed by the High Courts while exercising the inherent powers
under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings.
5. On the above submissions, prayer is made to quash the charges
framed by the trial Court against the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as the
complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned
counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the instant
petition.
7. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the case diary as well as
other documents on record.
8. Before considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court would like to consider the scope of interference at this stage.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. Gourishetty
Mahesh reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226 has held as under :
“18. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an
enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or
whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would
not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court. It
is true that the Court should be circumspect and judicious in
exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and
circumstances into consideration before issuing process,
otherwise, it would be an instrument in the hands of a private
complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person
needlessly. At the same time, Section 482 is not an instrument
handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and
brings about its closure without full-fledged enquiry.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 12/6/2024
12:16:13 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:58986 5
10. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Srikanth v. State of
Telangana, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373 has held as under :
“17. It could thus be seen, that this Court has held, that where
the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute a case against the accused, the High
Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. Further,
it has been held that where the uncontroverted allegations in
the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose any offence and make out a case against the
accused, the Court would be justified in quashing the
proceedings.”
11. Thus, in the light of above enunciation of law, it is crystal clear
that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is extra ordinary in nature
and it is settled proposition of law that this power has to be exercised
sparingly and with great care and caution only to give effect to an
order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of the Court or to
otherwise secure the ends of justice and only in the cases where
attaining facts and circumstances satisfy that possibilities of
miscarriage of justice Will arise in case of non-use of power. In
quashing the proceeding, the High Court has to see whether the
allegations made in the complaint, if proved, make out a prima facie
offence. At such stage sifting or weighing of the evidence is neither
permitted nor expected. While considering the petition under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., the Courts have to be strictly confined to the scope and
ambit of the provision.
12. Now adverting to the present case, though date of incidents of
both the FIRs coincides, however, veracity of the FIRs is to be looked
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 12/6/2024
12:16:13 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:58986 6
into by the trial court as also the arguments raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner are matter of defence which can very well be
raised by the petitioner and appreciated by the trial Court at
appropriate stage. This Court can quash the proceedings only if
allegations do not make out a prima facie offence. This Court cannot
conduct a mini trial to adjudicate the correctness of the allegations.
13. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in
the considered opinion of this Court, all the grounds raised by the
petitioner in the present petition are mixed questions of law and facts,
which cannot be appreciated without recording the evidence.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is
made out warranting interference. Accordingly, the petition is
dismissed.
14. However, petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the grounds
raised herein before the trial Court at appropriate stage.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
anand
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 12/6/2024
12:16:13 PM