Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Paliya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G.S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21714 1
M.Cr.C. No.14702/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 4th DECEMBER 2024
M.Cr.C. No. 14702 OF 2024
SANJAY PALIA AND ANOTHER
VS.
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance : None for applicant.
Shri N.K. Gupta, Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2/State
Shri R.K. Shrivastava, Counsel for respondent no.3.
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed for
quashment of FIR in crime No. 31/2024 registered at Police Station Mau, Distt.
Bhind for offences under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B of IPC.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present application in short are that the
respondent no. 2 filed a complaint against the applicant and others, in which an
order dated 5-2-2024 was passed by Trial Magistrate Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
and in compliance of that order, the police has registered the aforesaid offence.
3. The respondent no. 2 filed a criminal complaint on the allegations that he
is the permanent resident of Distt. Gwalior and is making preparation for Govt.
job. At present he is working as journalist. He came to know that applicants
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/6/2024
5:39:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21714 2
M.Cr.C. No.14702/2024
and others are posted as Govt. Teachers in various schools situated in Mau,
Distt. Bhind. The applicant no.1 Sanjay Palia is at present posted in Govt.
Middle School Makhori, Block Godhad, Sankul Centre, Govt. Boys Higher
Secondary School, Mau, Distt. Bhind, whereas applicant No. 2 Brajesh Sharma
is posted in Govt. Middle School Sinor, Block Godhad, Sankul Centre, Govt.
Boys Higher Secondary School, Mau, Distt. Bhind,. They had produced the
mark sheet of D.Ed., at the time of procuring appointment. The aforesaid
marksheets are forged marksheets and were prepared only for obtaining
appointment. Thus, it was alleged that the applicants have played fraud and
have obtained the appointment in place of eligible candidates. Although the
respondent no.2 had made complaint to the police authorities, but no action was
taken. Accordingly, on the basis of order dated 5-2-2024 passed under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C., the impugned FIR has been lodged.
4. This case was listed for hearing along with M.Cr.C. No. 19837 of 2024
and M.Cr.C. No. 13852 of 2024. Challenging the FIR lodged in compliance of
order dated 5-2-2024 passed by J.M.F.C., Gohad, Distt. Bhind, it was submitted
by learned Counsel for the applicants in the connected matters that respondent
no.2 is in habit of filing similar complaints against the Govt. officials. A similar
complaint was filed by respondent no. 2 against Smt. Lata Rawat and on the
basis of order passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. FIR was lodged, which
was challenged by Smt. Lata Rawat by filing M.Cr.C. No. 16743 of 2022. A
co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 9-7-2022, quashed the FIR.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the case in hand is duly covered by order dated
9-7-2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 16743 of 2022.
5. Counsel for the State submitted that the case in hand is duly covered by
order dated 9-7-2022.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/6/2024
5:39:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21714 3
M.Cr.C. No.14702/2024
6. Counsel for respondent no. 2 also could not point out any distinguishable
feature to point out that how order dated 9-7-2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 16743
of 2022 would not apply.
7. Considered the submissions made by Counsel for the respondents as well
as grounds raised in the application.
8. The co-ordinate bench in M.Cr.C. No. 16743 of 2022 has passed the
following order :
“By invoking the inherent power of this Court, the present petition has
been filed u/S 482 of CrPC for quashment of FIR vide Crime No.638 of 2021
registered at Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior for offences punishable
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC and other subsequent proceedings
initiated on the basis of private complaint made by the complainant/respondent
No.3 before the Court of JMFC, Gwalior.
(2) Short facts giving rise to controversy involved in the present petition are
that respondent No.3/Punjab Singh Gurjar filed an application under Section
156(3) of CrPC before the Court of JMFC, Gwalior against the petitioner for
commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC
and Section 13(1)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act [in short ” the PC Act”] on
the ground of committing forgery in obtaining marks in D.Ed. examination and
holding post of Primary/Assistant Teacher/Samvida Shala Shikshak. On the basis
of aforesaid complaint, a cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate concerned
in relation to aforesaid offences and ordered for registration of FIR against the
accused. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner before this Court is seeking quashment
of FIR and further proceedings initiated thereof.
(3) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent
No.3/complainant is a journalist and the aforesaid complaint has been made
before Court of JMFC to falsely implicate the petitioner along with other
persons. It is further contended that all the employees are meritorious candidates
who have obtained good marks in D.Ed. Examination and on the basis of false
allegation, the petitioner has been implicated an accused for commission of
offence under the PC Act. The complaint so lodged by complainant suffers from
delay since it is filed after lapse of long years and same is totally baseless. It is
further contended that complaint presented before the Court of JMFC by
respondent No.3 is not maintainable and if the entire complaint and documents
produced by complainant along with complaint are perused, it can safely inferred
that same do not disclose any offence and complaint is nothing but a sheer abuse
of process of law. If the material facts in the present case are analyzed on the
basis of principles set out in catena of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court, it is
difficult to say that the complaint discloses offences alleged by complainant.
Therefore, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court for exercising
inherent powers of this Court u/S 482 of CrPC for quashment of FIR and other
criminal proceedings initiated therefrom.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/6/2024
5:39:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21714 4
M.Cr.C. No.14702/2024
(4) On the contrary, learned counsel for State as well as complainant submit
that the conduct of petitioner constitutes an offence as there is clear allegation
that she has obtained D.Ed. mark-sheet and held the post in question by creating
a forgery and by producing false document, therefore, it cannot be said that the
criminal action should not be initiated against her. It is further contended that a
complaint can be quashed where allegations made in 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 any offence. The Magistrate is competent to
apply it mind on the allegation made in the complaint and on verification of
documents filed with the complaint, feel apposite that there is a prima facie case
to trigger criminal prosecution against the accused and may take cognizance in
the matter and thereby, order for registration of FIR. It is further contended that it
is settled legal proposition of law that while considering case for quashing of FIR
or criminal proceedings, the Court should not kill a still-born child and an
appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there are compelling
circumstances to do so. Hence, it is submitted that no interference is called for
and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
(5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available
on record.
(6) The sole contention raised by the petitioner in support of aforesaid
challenge in the present petition is that the application under Section 156 (3) of
Cr.P.C preferred by respondent No.3/ complainant is not maintainable and no
cognizance could be taken by the Magistrate concerned. Clear aspect regarding
the scope and ambit of Section 156(3) of CrPC has been laid down by Hon’ble
Apex Court in the matter of Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Gujarat, AIR 2015 SC 1742 which reads as under:-
”20. It has been held, for the same reasons, that direction by the
Magistrate for investigation under Section 156(3) cannot be given
mechanically. In Anil Kumar vs. M.K. Aiyappa, it was observed :
“11. The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came up for
consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in
Maksud Saiyed case [(2008) 5 SCC 668] examined the
requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before
exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held that where
jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section
156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply
his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer
the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a
valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate
should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has
gone through the complaint, documents and heard the
complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be
sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and
hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to
order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, should be
reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is
neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the
order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view, has
stated no reasons for ordering investigation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/6/2024
5:39:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21714 5
M.Cr.C. No.14702/2024
(Emphasis supplied)
(7) As per the provisions of Section 200 of CrPC, a Magistrate while taking
cognizance of an offence on the complaint, shall examine upon oath the
complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such
examination, shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by complainant and
the witnesses and also by the Magistrate concerned. Section 200 of CrPC
satisfies the procedure of examination of complainant while filing of complaint
under Section 156(3) CrPC which satisfies the provisions regarding
empowerment of Magistrate concerned to pass an appropriate order in taking an
order of cognizance under Section 190 of CrPC.
(8) The provision of Section 190 of CrPC reads as under:-
”190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates. (1) Subject to the
provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and
any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this
behalf under sub- section (2), may take cognizance of any
offence-
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which
constitute such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(a) upon information received from any person other
than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that
such offence has been committed.
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of
the second class to take cognizance under subsection (1) of such
offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.”
(9) Regarding the scope and ambit of Section 200 of CrPC, Hon’ble Apex
Court in the matter of Vijay Dhanuka & Ors vs. Najima Mamtaj & Ors.,
(2014) 14 SCC 638 has held as under:-
”9.Under Section 200 of the Code, on presentation of the
complaint by an individual, other than public servant in certain
contingency, the Magistrate is required to examine the
complainant on solemn affirmation and the witnesses present, if
any. Thereafter, on perusal of the allegations made in the
complaint, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation
and the witnesses examined, if any, various options are available
to him. If he is satisfied that the allegations made in the complaint
and statements of the complainant on oath and the witnesses
constitute an offence, he may direct for issuance of process as
contemplated under Section 204 of the Code. In case, the
Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding, the option available to him is to dismiss the complaint
under Section 203 of the Code. If on examination of the allegations
made in the complaint and the statement of the complainant on
solemn affirmation and the witnesses examined, the Magistrate is
of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, the
option available to him is to postpone the issue of process and
either inquire the case himself or direct the investigation to be
made by a police officer or by any other person as he thinks fit.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/6/2024
5:39:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21714 6
M.Cr.C. No.14702/2024
This option is also available after the examination of the
complainant only.”
(10) On perusal of provisions of Sections 190 & 200 of CrPC, it is evident that
it is the whole discretion and jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned to proceed
either u/S. 200 of CrPC or u/S. 156(3) CrPC. In the case in hand, the FIR has
been lodged against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471, 34 of IPC in connection with Crime No.638 of 2021 registered at Police
Station Thatipur, District Gwalior. The complainant/ respondent No.3 has made
an allegation that petitioner has obtained appointment on the post of
Assistant/Primary Teacher by producing forge and fabricated documents of
D.Ed. It is further alleged by the complainant that the documents produced by
petitioner were forged. From perusal of complaint as well the impugned
impugned FIR, it appears that complainant/ respondent No.3 who is a journalist,
has lodged FIR against various employees from time to time. It is admitted fact
that the petitioner along with other employees have been obtained appointment
by the authorities concerned and they are in service since long back. While
giving appointment to them, each and every aspect regarding the qualification of
employees are being verified by the authorities concerned -employer and after
satisfying the same, the appointment letters are being issued in favour of them.
At a later stage, the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioner along
with other persons by respondent No.3/complainant with malice and as
mentioned above, it appears that complainant/respondent No.3 is a habitual in
lodging the complaint against persons-employees concerned. As there was no
complaint by the employer with regard to getting job in question by preparation
of forged or fabricated documents by employees, therefore, the complaint made
by respondent No.3/ complainant appears to be malicious and there is no locus of
the complainant to lodge the complaint or FIR. While giving appointment to the
candidates like petitioner, all relevant documents are being verified by the
employer and on verification, the petitioner has got an appointment on the said
post and in such type of cases, no other person like respondent No.3/
complainant has locus to file complaint/FIR. Therefore, complaint made by
complainant/respondent No.3 reflects a malice on the part of complainant.
Therefore, the impugned FIR lodged against petitioner deserves to be quashed.
(11) From the above analysis and the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court, it appears that the complainant has lodged a complaint with malice and
the complaint made by him is baseless. In the result, the petition filed by the
petitioner is hereby allowed to the extent indicated above. The impugned FIR
vide Crime No.638 of 2021 registered at Police Station Thatipur, District
Gwalior for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC and other
subsequent proceedings initiated on the basis of private complaint made by
complainant/respondent No.3 before the Court of JMFC, Gwalior is hereby
quashed.
(12) Let a copy of this order be sent to the Police Station as well as Court of
JMFC concerned for necessary information.”
9. Since, the complaint filed by respondent no. 2 as well as FIR lodged
against Smt. Lata Rawat on similar allegations has been dismissed by holding
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/6/2024
5:39:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21714 7
M.Cr.C. No.14702/2024
that complaint made by respondent no.2 reflects malice on his part, and in
absence of any distinguishable feature, this Court is of considered opinion, that
FIR No. 31 of 2024 registered at Police Station Mau, Distt. Bhind for offences
under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B of IPC is liable to be quashed.
10. Ex Consequenti, FIR No. 31 of 2024 registered at Police Station Mau,
Distt. Bhind for offences under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B of IPC,
qua the present applicants, is, hereby, quashed.
11. Application succeeds and is hereby allowed.
(G.S.Ahluwalia)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/6/2024
5:39:00 PM