Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramhet vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20378
1 MCRC-7193-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 18th OF NOVEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7193 of 2023
RAMHET AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shyam Lal Dhakad, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Naval Kishor Gupta, Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
ORDER
This application, under section 482 of the Cr.PC., has been filed for
quashment of FIR in Crime No. 237/2022 registered at Police Station
Pahargarh, District Morena for offences under sections 452, 354, 427, 323,
147 and 149 of IPC.
2. According to the prosecution case, complainant Sarita lodged an
FIR alleging that on 11/12/2022, she was all alone in her house along with
two daughters. All of a sudden, 10-12 persons entered into her house and
started assaulting her and tried to outrage her modesty. When she raised
alarm to seek help, then her uncle-in-law tried to intervene. He too was
assaulted by these persons. Extensive damage was caused to the house. It is
stated that apart from applicants, Omprakash, Matadeen, Rajpal and 2-5
persons have committed the offence who are not known to her. It is further
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11/22/2024
6:26:06 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20378
2 MCRC-7193-2023
alleged that her husband Gajraj Dhakad and her father-in-law were out of
station and her uncle-in-law Karan Singh was in field, therefore, taking
advantage of their absence, she and her daughters were beaten.
3. Challenging the FIR lodged by complainant, it is submitted that
father-in-law of complainant namely Sohanlal Dhakad had taken an amount
of Rs.30,00,000/- from the applicants and the said amount was paid in
installments from 22/01/2022 to 09/05/2022. An amount of Rs.12,58,501/-
was paid through Phonepe and an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid in cash
as father-in-law of complainant is relative of the applicants. It is further
alleged that father-in-law of complainant had taken Rs.25,00,000/- on
10/09/2021, Rs.2,00,000/- on 26/10/2021, Rs.5,00,000/- on 16/11/2021,
Rs.10,00,000/- on 23/11/2021, Rs.20,00,000/- on 7.12.2021, Rs.5,00,000/-
on 11/12/2021, Rs.10,00,000/- on 21/12/2021, Rs.2,00,000/- on 20/1/2022,
in all Rs.69 lacs. Sohanlal Dhakad has repaid some of the amount after
alienating his house situated at Kailaras and still Rs.57 lacs are outstanding
against him. In order to repay the outstanding amount, Sohanlal Dhakad
entered into an agreement to sell his house situated in Kailaras to Kalavati
Dhakad, wife of applicant no.2 Rajendra Dhakad for a consideration of
Rs.75,00,000/- and the aforesaid amount was also paid and an agreement for
sale was entered on 17/06/2022. Similarly, Sohanlal Dhakad had taken a loan
of Rs.12 lacs from applicant no.4. When applicants demanded their money
back then they were threatened by Sohanlal Dhakad that he would falsely
implicate them in a case and, accordingly, applicants made a complaint to
SHO of Police Station Pahargarh, District Morena on 17/12/2022. Another
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11/22/2024
6:26:06 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20378
3 MCRC-7193-2023
complaint was made to Superintendent of Police, Morena on 22/12/2022.
However, no action was taken. It is submitted that out of malafides, father-in-
law of complainant has got a false FIR registered against the applicants. It is
further submitted that Smt. Kalavati Dhakad wife of applicant no.2 has also
filed a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction
which is pending and, thus, it is submitted that FIR registered against
applicants may be quashed.
4 . Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for the
State. It is submitted that once the complaint discloses commission of
cognizable offence, then the malafides of complainant become secondary.
5. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
6. The basic ground for quashment of FIR which has been raised by
applicants is that since there is a money transaction and a huge amount was
lend out to Sohanlal Dhakad and as he was not ready to repay the same in
spite of multiple demands raised by the applicants, therefore, a false report
has been lodged. Thus, in nutshell, it is the contention of applicants that
since the allegations suffer from malafides, therefore, the FIR is liable to be
quashed.
7. So far as the malafides are concerned, it is clear that this Court
cannot adjudicate upon the fact as to whether the allegations are malafide or
not. The Supreme Court in the case of Renu Kumari Vs. Sanjay Kumar and
others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 346 has held that if allegations made in the
FIR make out a cognizable offence, then malafides of the informant become
secondary. The relevant portion is quoted as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11/22/2024
6:26:06 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20378
4 MCRC-7193-2023
“9. “8. Exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC in a case of this
nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not
confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the
inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of
CrPC. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order
under CrPC, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii)
to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor
desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing
with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise.
The courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express
provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of
functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is
the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely
recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All
courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any
express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers
as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course
of administration of justice on the principle of quando lex aliquid
alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non
potest (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that
without which it cannot exist). While exercising the powers under
the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or
revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section, though wide, has
to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only
when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down
in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do
real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone
the courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of
justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to
produce injustice, the court has the power to prevent abuse. It
would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action
which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice.
In exercise of the powers the court would be justified to quash any
proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to
abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings
would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the report, the court may examine the question of
fact. When a report is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to
look into the materials to assess what the report has alleged and
whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are
accepted in toto.
9. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866 : (1960)
3 SCR 388] this Court summarised some categories of cases
where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the
proceedings:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance e.g. want ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11/22/2024
6:26:06 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:203785 MCRC-7193-2023
sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report
or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but
there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence
adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
(AIR p. 869)
10. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in
mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal
evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent
with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal
evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the
accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482
CrPC, 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. Judicial process
should not be an instrument of oppression, or,
needless harassment. The court should be circumspect and
judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts
and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it
would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to
unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time
the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to
short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The
scope of exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC and the
categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power
under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice
were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR
1992 SC 604] . A note of caution was, however, added that the
power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of
rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as
follows : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)
‘(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11/22/2024
6:26:06 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20378
6 MCRC-7193-2023
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.’
11. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court
under Section 482 CrPC are very wide and the very plenitude of
the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must
be careful to see that its decision, in exercise of this power, is
based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be
exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being
the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a
prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete
and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and
produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual
or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true
perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-
fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High
Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the
proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary
[(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC 892] and
Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1
Cri LJ 1].] It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse
the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order
to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11/22/2024
6:26:06 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20378
7 MCRC-7193-2023
such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be
quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and
conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. When an
information is lodged at the police station and an offence is
registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of
secondary importance. It is the material collected during the
investigation and evidence led in the court which decides the fate
of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the
informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the
basis for quashing the proceedings. [See Dhanalakshmi v. R.
Prasanna Kumar [1990 Supp SCC 686 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 142],
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma [1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 : 1992
SCC (Cri) 192] , Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
[(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059] , State of Kerala v.
O.C. Kuttan [(1999) 2 SCC 651 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 304] , State of
U.P. v. O.P. Sharma [(1996) 7 SCC 705 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 497] ,
Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada [(1997) 2 SCC 397 :
1997 SCC (Cri) 415], Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) [(1999) 8 SCC 728 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1503] and Rajesh
Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri)
401] .]” The above position was again reiterated in State of
Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa [(2002) 3 SCC 89 : 2002 SCC (Cri)
539] , State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta [(2004) 1 SCC 691 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 353] and State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo
[(2005) 13 SCC 540 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 272] , SCC pp. 547-50,
paras 8- 11.””
8. Furthermore, it is well settled principle of law that while exercising
powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,. this Court cannot consider defence
of the accused persons. Even otherwise in the light of judgments passed by
the Supreme Court in the cases of XYZ v. State of Gujarat reported in
(2019) 10 SCC 337 , State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Martin & Ors. reported in
(2018) 5 SCC 718 , Ajay Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand , reported in
(2011) 12 SCC 319 , Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar reported in
(2019) 13 SCC 350 , State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh reported in (2010)
11 SCC 226 , M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana , reported in (2019) 10 SCC
373 , CBI v. Arvind Khanna reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686 , State of MP Vs.
Kunwar Singh by order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.709/2021 ,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11/22/2024
6:26:06 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20378
8 MCRC-7193-2023
Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan , reported in (2018) 5 SCC 678 , Teeja Devi
v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 15 SCC 221 , State of Orissa v. Ujjal
Kumar Burdhan, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547 , S. Khushboo v.
Kanniammal reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600 , Sangeeta Agrawal v. State of
U.P., reported in (2019) 2 SCC 336 , Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander
reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 , Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Kovuri
Satyanarayana Reddy reported in (2012) 12 SCC 437 and M.N. Ojha v. Alok
Kumar Srivastav reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682 , this Court can quash the
proceedings only if the uncontroverted allegations do not make out an
offence. Furthermore, this Court in exercise of powers under S..482 of
Cr.P.C. (S.528 of BNSS) cannot conduct a roving enquiry to hold as to
whether the allegations made in the FIR are correct or not.
8. So far as the suit filed by the wife of applicant no.2 for specific
performance of contract is concerned, it is specifically admitted by applicants
that there is no temporary injunction in the said suit. However, it is
submitted that sale deed in respect of house of area admeasuring 12 x 60 =
720 square feet situated in Survey No.200/2/1/1/1/1/1/1/1 has already been
executed by Sohanlal Dhakad in favour of Kalavati Dhakad on 9/10/2023.
From the aforesaid sale deed, it is clear that possession of the house was
given on the date of execution of sale deed, whereas the offence in question
was committed on 11/12/2022. Whether the offence was committed in the
same house which was sold by Sohanlal Dhakad on 9/10/2023 or it was
committed at some different place is not very material because even if it is
presumed that the offence was committed in the house which was ultimately
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11/22/2024
6:26:06 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20378
9 MCRC-7193-2023
sold by Sohanlal Dhakad on 9/10/2023, then it is clear that the applicants
were not in possession of the house when they forcibly entered and assaulted
the complainant. So far as payment of huge cash amount to Sohanlal Dhakad
is concerned, it is clear that in view of section 269SS of Income Tax Act, no
payment in excess of Rs.20,000/- can be made in cash. The defence that huge
amount was paid to Sohanlal Dhakad is a disputed question of fact and
cannot be accepted in the light of Section 269SS of Income Tax Act.
9. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the
application fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
(and)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11/22/2024
6:26:06 PM